Post 4: Letter to the Editor
Pick an article in a newspaper on a hot issue (Don't Ask Don't Tell, Afghanistan war, economy, etc.). Write a letter to the editor expressing support for the article or criticizing it. Use sources to back up your point of view. Be sure to state early in your letter what article you are commenting on and please hyperlink to the article itself.
You can pick an issue or an article a classmate has already written about for this post. It is not first come first serve. But you can't write about an article you have already used for one of your other posts so far.
This is intended to be fun and is your last original post so pick something you are interested in. You can look at example letters to the editor on opinion pages in a paper for a model if that would be helpful.
Due on Friday, October 22.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 11:56 AM
44 Comments:
Letter to the Editor
Mark Thompson: Director-General, Editor in Chief of BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11365122
To whom it may Concern:
I recently read the article in the BBC Newspaper regarding the oil spill in the gulf from September 19. Although I agree that it is certainly a good thing that the oil spill was as the article put it “killed” by a cement plug put in place by BP on September 17, I feel like this issue is long from over. Although it is a relief to many that the well is sealed, it upset me that this specific article only mentioned the damages from the spill in the last paragraph, which was a brief one sentence. I feel this article is a bit too optimistic regarding the content and how it is presented.
For instance, the spill not only caused severe damages to the local environments and economies, but it also cost BP a fortune. Recently, it was made known that BP has agreed to sell business interests in Vietnam and Venezuela to Russian oil venture, TNK-BP to help pay for the gulf spill. These business interests are worth an estimated 1.8 million dollars in U.S. money (1). Although this new deal gives evidence that TNK-BP and BP- once warring sides- will be able to reach a settlement over competition, the loss of business interests for BP could have an effect on them.
The business of BP aside, economic issues caused by the spill will have an affect on the area for years to come. As the Orlando Sentinel- out of Orlando, Florida- put it, images of oil-soaked birds, center to many of the stories about the spill, remain fresh in the American peoples minds. The human aspect of the spill is more difficult to convey, but these issues will most definitely outlast the effects the spill has on the wildlife (2). People have lost jobs, there has been a struggle to provide food, and overall economies are suffering. The Orlando Sentinel has problem pinpointed: there is oil in our feathers, but we can’t see it. (2).
Your BBC article comments on President Obama’s remarks, including his statements that he will do everything to make sure that the Gulf Coast will recover fully from the disaster, and that the road will not be easy. Nothing else was said about Obama and his plans to help in the spill. While many people are writing that Obama hasn’t done enough in the issue, in fact, on October 5, he signed the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, which will oversee efforts in the U.S. to restore the Gulf of Mexico (3). This task force will include five U.S. State Representatives appointed by Obama as well as the possibility of having representatives from Native American tribes that were affected by the spill. Whether the task force has been beneficial or not is yet to be seen, but it is the fact that Obama is implementing something to help the cause that matters. I feel your BBC article didn’t address Obama’s plan as well as it could have, Granted, it was written before the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force was signed, but I still felt information of the subject was limited and vague.
All in all, I feel this specific BBC article was very choppy. Although it explained that the cement plug ‘killed’ the well, I think the article jumped around a lot. It addressed the sealing of the leak, but I think it was too optimistic, especially since the well was just sealed when this was released. I also think the one sentence blurb regarding environmental and economic problems was not enough regarding the huge affect it had on such issues. A huge issue like the oil spill should be discussed more thoroughly, so that readers will have the best understanding of the issue. Such thoroughness is even more important being that this is a British newspaper, because the Oil Spill happened in the America’s, so the people of Britain may not be getting the same exact information that people of the U.S. are getting.
This article, though it addressed main points, wasn’t written as well as it could have been and as editor in chief, you should take into account the information the BBC is presenting, especially when it regards international affairs.
Sources:
(1) http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/bp-unloads-assets-so-it-can-pay-for-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill/19678106
(2) http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-oil-spill-church-response-1018120101015,0,4721869.story
(3) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/05/Obama-signs-gulf-restoration-order/UPI-30521286331541/
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ok, people. This is straight-up unacceptable. This assignment has been posted for nearly HALF of the available time to complete it, and yet no one has taken the 2 hours it takes to exhaustively research and defend a political opinion on an open-ended question that their undeveloped teenage minds have had little time or motivation to really care about. They probably cite some “five day weekend” that they expect the gods of procrastination to plop in their laps like they deserve it. I’m here to tell you: use this blog post as a trend-setting agenda of timeliness that will define the APUSGOPO students of the Class of 2011 as hardworking, honest, “legit” government students who complete their technologically innovative online assignments with time enough to discuss their conclusions in class the next day. And take no notice of my past 4 am blog posts which are clearly due to some computing error.
Seeing as the above was merely a device to start me working on this blog post (I’m just publishing it because I’m insane and I want to thoroughly run my presidential election chances into the ground), and working on this blog post is probably just a subconscious method of procrastination to avoid having to, say, compare media looking for bias or read some chapter about political parties, let’s get down to business. The topic is school choice.
The issues surrounding school choice have always confused me. I first learned about this hot-button issue taking the political orientation quiz on NPR while in Mrs. Simon’s Civics class. As summarized by PBS, “Supporters of school choice believe that free market competition will improve student and school performance” because of limited funds giving families a choice in their schooling (1).
------------------------------------------
Responding to an opinion piece in The New York Times dated October 10, 2010:
“Grading School Choice” by Ross Douthat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/opinion/11douthat.html?_r=1
To the editor:
Mr. Douthat’s recent article “Grading School Choice” advocates that policies of school choice be made more effective in reforming education, stating “a real marketplace in education … would only fund students, tying a school’s budget to the number of children seeking to enroll.” Douthat’s article also forwards the position that money towards education does not result in better education, touting the efficiency of “both charter and private schools,” which “usually spend much less per pupil than their public competitors.”
As a high school student in Minnesota, I am in a position to take advantage of extremely well developed school choice policies. As one of 30,000 Minnesota students currently enrolled in school districts where they do not reside (2), I abandoned a district facing budget cuts which would impact gifted and talented programming to attend school in a district offering a magnet program (3). The phone calls and social repercussions of my home district, as well as the dedicated recruiting efforts of the magnet program I transferred into, suggest that the move had serious economic consequences for both districts, and my home district has now begun to reverse budget cuts and implement magnet programs of its own.
I do not agree with Mr. Douthat that purer school choice results in better education. In my experience, the advantages touted by magnet schools pan out to name-brand, poorly implemented curriculums where educational accountability depends on students’ inherent ability to succeed on low-standards state tests. Another option prevalent in Minnesota is the concept of charter schools, independent public schools which form to recruit students along with their per-pupil education funding (4). I have heard criticisms of these programs, such as Eagle Ridge Academy (5), citing inadequately qualified teachers and quirky school policies. Many of Eagle Ridge’s students returned to the regular school district after a year there. I fear that should “the theory of the free market” be applied to schools, money would go towards brick facades and brand-name lunchroom food, and problems of deception and lack of regulation now evident in America’s for-profit college industry would quickly crop up in schools.
My greatest criticism of Mr. Douthat’s suggestion is its potential to alienate disadvantaged families, leaving them struggling in unfunded, failing districts. My transfer of districts was fueled by many factors which are the benefit of the financially comfortable: available family cars, a commuting white-collar father, a stay-at-home mother able to pick me up daily. Even the parental interest in my education which allowed me to take advantage of Minnesota’s school choice is characteristic of stable finances. The core proponent of school choice in the 1960s, Milton Friedman, “reasoned that families with greater incomes and more freedom to choose flock to institutions with those of the same race and socioeconomic background, thereby stratifying the system and creating inequities” (7, Page 2). In the nearby, upper-middle class school district of Eden Prairie, where families are allowed to choose enrollment at any of the district’s elementary schools, the well-off have flocked to the district’s most affluent and high-performing schools, while some elementaries are populated by dwindling numbers of students, 42% of whom receive free or reduced lunch (6). The policy has come near violating Minnesota standards of racial equity and forced a redrawing of school boundaries.
Mr. Douthat’s assessment of the school choice situation comes too close to privatizing education. In my opinion, the solution to America’s education crisis is not in school choice, but in a policy that he criticizes- throwing money at public schools. Gamma radiation! Sorry, just a nugget for those of you who are actually reading this. Conservatives have consistently argued that increasing funding in public schools has little correlation to school performance- a position that has come under fire (8). I know of many of my classmates who would gladly go into teaching as a career, but pick professions they favor less because of the potential to double or triple their salary as a teacher. By making teaching a valued, competitive position, schools will inevitably increase the quality of their teaching staff. This also requires a measurable, regulated, national standard of teaching performance, which I do not believe has been achieved with state and federally mandated standardized tests. Of course, as Mr. Douthat valiantly acknowledged of his own opinion, “this is a radical idea, guaranteed to meet intense resistance.” Given 20 years of high spending for my uber-liberal policy to work, of course we would see improvements in education. However- and here’s where I lose the teachers’ unions in my bid for world domination- I agree with the viewpoint voiced by President Obama (there’s a surprise), which calls for increased teacher accountability and an end to bad teachers being protected by tenure and seniority (9).
The End.
Sincerely,
AnthoNOVA
-----------------------------------
Rather than proofreading that, I think I’ll focus my attention on how to split it up given Blogger’s character limit. Someone should easily be able to find at least one thing either absolutely insane or at least logically false in there to make this a lively discussion. Now, if anyone has posted in response to prompt number 4 while I’ve been slamming unstable rants into my Apple or Windows keyboard of choice, I suggest they start running. I’m clearly in a mood, and I chase people down as an extracurricular activity.
Sources:
(1) http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/choice.html
(2) http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/School_Choice/Public_School_Choice/Open_Enrollment/index.html
(3) http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/School_Choice/Public_School_Choice/Magnet_Schools/index.html
(4) http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/School_Choice/Public_School_Choice/Charter_Schools/index.html
(5) http://www.eagleridgeacademy.org/aboutus.html
(6) http://wcco.com/education/eden.prairie.schools.2.1958805.html
(7) http://www.naspaa.org/initiatives/paa/pdf/jamie_privuznak.pdf
(8) http://www.jstor.org/pss/20404484
(9) http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39378576/
Now, as a trend setter, and in an effort to extend this ridiculously excessively unnecessarily long blog post, I’ll provide some commentary and advice as it materializes in my head.
1. The New York Times’ “Highlights” feature in its comments on editorials is an exceptional tool for developing an opinion and finding responses to articles. The section for my article can be found here: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/opinion/11douthat.html?scp=2&sq=school%20choice&st=cse
2. That letter was a whole lot more coherent in my head than God knows what is actually posted there. Outline, outline, outline!
3. Yes, my use of HTML font modifiers is excessive. But they’re downright cool.
4. Publish a really good blog post at the beginning of the term so you have the freedom to bomb with a radically different blog post (Read:Spam) that risks failure at the end of the term.
5. Attack ads generally produce negative views of one’s presidential campaign and signal desperate attempts to pull events 20 years in the past into the spotlight. Remember that, Caitlin, when your political advisors try using this against me.
All I have to say is WOW Anthony. You have a really interesting point of view. I look forward to reading more posts. ;) M. Aby
Because I felt the need to compete with Anthony to see who could spout off the best rant, I submit mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27patriot.html?ref=usa_patriot_act
To the editor:
I recently read Susan Jo Keller’s 2007 article “Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to be Illegal” and I think that Judge Ann L. Aiken of the federal District Court in Portland should be commended. As an American, it is appalling to me that other citizens and our own federal government found it appropriate to respond to the attacks of September 11, 2001 with an Orwellian load of you-know-what called the Patriot Act.
According to the English dictionary, terrorism is defined as one of three things: the use of violence and coerce to intimidate or coerce for political purposes; the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization; or a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government (1). Outlined in the terms of the Patriot Act, the federal government is granted increased surveillance power, allowing them greater access to records, the ability to secret searches, intelligence searches, and “trap and trace” searches, such as wiretapping (2). Additionally, the government gets unchecked power to search your financial records, medical history, Internet usage, and virtually anything else that goes on record.
Just going by the definition of the word, one could argue that the Bush Administration did more to contribute to “terrorism” that impacts the US than any radical Islam group. The Taliban may have hijacked passenger airplanes and flown them into the World Trade Center, but the fear from one isolated attack eventually wears off. However, this is where the Department of Homeland Security, the brainchild of Mr. Bush, comes in.
As a response to the infamous 9/11 terror attacks, Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, and in March 2002, HS Presidential Directive-3 established the Homeland Security Advisory System (3). The scale contains 5 “terror levels,” ‘Low,’ ‘Guarded,’ ‘Elevated,’ ‘High,’ and ‘Severe.’ Since the scale has come into being, the default, everyday level has been ‘Elevated,’ which indicated a significant risk of terrorist attacks (4). For any flights, domestic or international, the default level goes up a notch to ‘High,’ which warns of a high risk that there will be terrorist attacks. As those of us who have read Nineteen Eighty-Four have seen first hand, is there a better way to keep people in line than to keep them afraid?
What’s even sadder is that according to a 2005 Gallup Poll which asked “Does the Patriot Act go too far?” 62% of Americans said that the Patriot Act was just right or didn’t go far enough (5). And what better a time to have such a federal power grab than under war? Looking back to our founding fathers, it’s clear to see how they would have felt on the issue, one must only read the Benjamin Franklin quote “He who would trade liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.” This is also reflected in the Constitution as the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. But after the 9/11 attacks and Bush frightening the public into believing Iraq had nuclear weapons, how could such a patriotic measure not be passed into law? As (I believe) Sinclair Lewis once said, “When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross.”
Using fear to further an agenda is a classic example of sophisticated terrorism. Kudos to Bush for tricking the American public into sacrificing their liberties so the NATO coalition can chase down some goat-riding Persians with AK-47s. His actions may not have been ethical, but he was quite the savant when it came to manipulating the public mind, but I digress.
Back to the topic at hand, the case of Portland lawyer Brandon Mayfield shows just to what extent the government has been able to abuse its Patriot Act powers. In March 2004, train bombings in Madrid killed 191 and injured over 2,000 people. The FBI found a plastic bag filled with detonator caps near the train station but initially could not identify fingerprints. Using enhanced technology, the investigators narrowed the suspects down to one of 20 matches, and began monitoring Mayfield and has family.
Mayfield converted to Islam in 1989 and once led the defense in a child custody case for a man who was suspected of conspiring to aid the Taliban. Mayfield believes that his religion and legal work were factors in the government assuming his guilt. At the height of his surveillence, Mayfield was thrown into jail for two weeks before a judge threw out the case. He reached a settlement with the government that allowed him to continue a lawsuit seeking overturn of parts of the Patriot Act.
Judge Aiken ruled in 2007 that the parts of the Patriot Act allowing unwarranted search and surveillance were unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the Fourth Amendment. I may be three years too late in writing this letter, but it’s never too late to come together as a society and say “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!”
Sources:
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
(2) http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act
(3) http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1214508631313.shtm
(4) http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm
(5) http://www.gallup.com/poll/17392/liberty-vs-security-public-mixed-patriot-act.aspx
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Article Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/23/space.plane/index.html?npt=NP1
by Barbara Starr, CNN
CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent
To the Editor -
I read the article you put up on CNN titled "U.S. military launches mystery space plane on secret mission" it was about a space shuttle launched into space by US Military for classified mission purposes. Actually the shuttle was launched in April 2010 and you are bringing up about this in October I feel like this is bit of an out dated information to bring out to the public considering that US Military and Pentagon does lot of field testing on weapons and technology and you choose to publish an article about a "mystery" space plane that launched months ago after the recent "mystery" shooting that happened at Pentagon today (October 19th). I think this article was published to create a negative opinion on people's mind about what pentagon could be doing in war times. In you article you also make random assumption about what the plane could be such as that it could start military operations in space, new type of weapon technology, or to shoot down planes. You also wrote the article with a lot of questions "Is it an aircraft? Is it the next generation space shuttle? How much does it cost? And why is it such a secret?" and these types question are I think were to create a very biased opinion about the pentagon on the reader.
You also wrote a question that says "The Air Force won't even say how many billions of dollars it's spending on the program" I don't know where you got the word billion from and i don't think government would spend billions of dollars for one space shuttle project actually it spends around a 100 million and I think you used the word billion to create a very negative opinion about Pentagon and tell the reader that government is spending mass amount of money on space project during tough economic times. You also pointed out that the project has never been fully explained by pentagon and I don't think a government should freely publish information about high classified project to the world and exposing its technology. I also saw that people who read this article were commenting negatively about government spending too much on useless things and it is only benefiting defense contractors. I thought this article was very much biased and you wrote a lot of this that could raise questions on reader mind and create a negative view about government spending in military. I though you should have put in more info about the project I found much more information on this project on a United States Air Force Page about Boeing X-37b, which also gave info on main features. I think all information on the article was questioning government and persuading reader to make assumptions about pentagon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/104351614.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
A Letter to the Editor:
Recently I read an article in the Star Tribune titled “Biden Mocks GOP over federal debt.” In this article, Joe Biden mocks Republicans and their calls for fiscal restraint. He blames Republicans for the current level of federal debt, and claims that Mark Dayton knows how to balance a budget.
There are several reasons in which I disagree with this article. Joe Biden seems to dislike Republicans because they spend less. Yes, I know that spending can stimulate an economy and create jobs. However, an increase in federal spending means the debt is just going to keep rising. If we want to solve our huge problem of economic debt I think we should start by spending less. Adding to our debt isn’t going to do America any good. Decreasing spending and not adding to our debt means in a few years that it will be easier to pay off our debt.
Also, Chinese economists are worried about the United States Congress approving the budget plan. They are worried this means the federal government will issue bonds and print more money to finance the deficit, which may prompt dollar depreciation. Dollar depreciation lessens value of Chinese holdings (1). Not to mention, it isn’t good for the United States either. The correct solution should be to decrease spending. Adding to the budget deficit and current financial crisis is not a good solution. This seems to me the same logic as adding gasoline, newspaper and dry wood to a forest fire when trying to put it out.
Biden seems to be criticizing Republicans for many things in this article that I don’t believe Republicans deserve. For example, cutting down taxes on businesses does encourage job creation because it encourages the businesses to higher more since they have more income (2). Biden makes it clear that we should be pumping much more money into the economy. Then we would spend more. He agrees with more taxation. He seems to criticize Republicans unnecessarily for wanting to cut down taxes. That’s one way of expressing a Republicans way for a more limited government. Also, it seems that Biden is blaming the economic mess on one specific administration or one Congress. This is not the case. The budget deficit and our money problems is a result of decades of overspending and not being able to pay money back- from both parties.
Also, no candidate should tell constituents that they are fixing the problem right now as they are in the office when the party themselves cannot really see a solution in the future (3). This is essentially what Joe Biden is doing when our last federal surplus occurred during the Clinton administration. This article does nothing to highlight what the Republican’s have done with the budget deficit. There are both pro’s and con’s to each stance on the issue. So can we stop blaming it on one party? Isn’t it both parties faults? I think our budget deficit is the result of careless spending habits and an unclear, indirect plan on spending, taxes, etc. We wouldn’t need to consider a huge tax hike if we had less of a problem in the first place. Let’s stop this blame game and focus. Republican’s are not the problem, nor are Democrats. Rather our spending plan seems to be the problem.
In addition, I would like to point out Joe Biden’s comment: "Mark [Dayton] knows how to balance a budget, the way he did as [state] auditor.” Wait, what? Last time I checked, balancing a budget was not in an auditor’s job description. According to dictionary.com, a person appointed and authorized to examine accounts and accounting records, compare the charges with the vouchers, verify balance sheet and income items, and state the result is an auditor.This makes Biden sound a little less intelligent. Perhaps Biden does know what he is taking about, but the statement really makes me wonder.
1.)http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-02/04/c_13162484.htm
2.)http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/budget/proposal/
3.)http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/125079-in-search-of-fiscal-responsibility-ten-questions-to-ask-the-candidates
4.)http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/auditor
www.star tribune.com/politics/105353688.html?page=1&c=y
In the response to "Appeals court tells us military in keep in place don't ask, don't tell policy for now" from the star tribune.
Letter to the editor,
The government has recently put a stay on the appeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy(1). I highly disagree with this because it is against the first amendment that gays are not allowed to be openly gay(1).They should be able to serve their country if they want to without being discriminated against. The pentagon had already started to admit openly gay people into the military, but since this stay it is likely that they will continue the don't ask, don't tell policy until the stay is appealed(1). This stay puts President Obama in a tough position because he had promised that his administration would get rid of this policy. Now that the federal government is fighting that, he is stuck between what he said and what is happening(2). I think that Obama should work harder to get his stance across to the rest of the federal government. If the policy is stopped this would help the public to trust him more since he is keeping his word. I think that some officials are afraid to get rid of this policy. One federal official said that letting in openly gay recruits could "harm troop morale"(1).This shouldn't be a problem, but even if it is, the rights of gays should be put above morale. Also, they shouldn't be concerned about the public's feelings because over 50% support ending the don't ask, don't tell policy(1). Thank you for including this article because it is a serious issue that people need to be informed about. Our country should support the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for our country. The military dishonors them when they deny gays the right to serve.
1. Star tribune www.startribune.com/politics/105353688.html
2.USA today content.usatoday.com/communities/the oval/post/2010/obama
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/10/21/year-after-year-our-culture-of-dependence-grows/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield
Dear Editor,
I feel the issues you are writing about are some of the underlying problems facing American politics today. This issue of, how much people depend on the government; can be highlighted as a key component of the split between party approach to policy enactment. According to the Heritage foundation the index of American dependence on Government has seen a major increase within the last year [1]. The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes for themselves, and those who are not claimed as dependents by someone who pays federal income taxes, jumped to a staggering 43.6% [1]. This means that not only are people getting more from the government but are contributing less to it. L.B.G’s Great society looks like a pathetic attempt to help people by today’s governmental hand out numbers. Margaret Thatcher words of wisdom “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” May be more relative in America today then people wish to here.
We need to be judging success the same way Ronald Reagan did “by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.” What we need to fix this addiction to government hand-outs is more people in Washington criticizing Mr. Obama’s, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s failed trillion dollars bail outs, people like Representative Michelle Bachmann[2]. Representative Bachman has been feverously opposing new taxes, and new government programs. If we can get more people of such nature into the Washington political circuit, then maybe we have a chance to recover from this downward socialistic cycle that we see happening.
Sincerely Caitlin Fontaine
[1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-2010-index-of-dependence-on-government
[2] http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/10/20/gene_lyons_gop_hypocrites
To Bill Keller, Editor of the New York Times.
In response to How to Really End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?hp
Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is a law that was passed in 1993 and bars openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from the military. As a result of DADT, the military has discharged more than 750 service members with critical skills, including members who have knowledge with Korean and Arabic language (1). Many Americans are ineligible for military service as a result of physical limitations, criminal records, and other restrictions. The military is finding it increasingly difficult to find eligible soldiers, and must reject able-bodied service members because of their sexuality, further limiting the number of eligible service members.
While there is a bill in Senate to allow gay and lesbian service members in the military, it is meeting resistance from Republicans and is losing momentum as the November elections approach (2). The article explains a possible alternative that could lead to a repeal of DADT. The Justice Department could tell the appellate court in charge of ruling on DADT, that President Obama believes the law is unconstitutional. If President Obama openly says that he believes that DADT is unconstitutional, the courts may decide to agree with his stance. President Bill Clinton set a precedent when he told the Supreme Court that he believed a law barring service members with H.I.V. from military service was unconstitutional, and backed by support from the military, Congressed repealed the law (3).
I support this article because I think that it expresses a clear and possible course of action to get DADT repealed. With partisanship and November elections bearing down on Congress, it will be a long and possibly unsuccessful battle to have DADT repealed in Congress (2), it is important that activists and politicians find other ways of overturning DADT. The Supreme Court and President Obama could set a strong precedent and declare DADT unconstitutional because it limits homosexual and bisexual service members’ free speech. I think that the article does a convincing job of explaining the possible success of repealing DADT if President Obama announces that he believes it is unconstitutional, because the article shows the success of President Clinton’s precedent.
As much as 75% of Americans support allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, and 73% of military personnel are comfortable with homosexuals (1). There is growing movement within the military and society to repeal DADT and the most important and final step is having the federal government repeal the law.
1) http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_3_n_733565.html
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?hp
1. Initial Link:USA Today :http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-10-21-pelican21_ST_N.htm
To the Editor:
Your recent article "Time to tally BP oil spill's toll on wildlife habitat" by Donna Leinwand, was quite refreshing. Being an animal lover myself, it was satisfying to read about the action that is taking, and will take place to restore the wildlife.
Researchers and environmental economists are collecting data that will soon be handed over to the state and federal officials to assess the damage, and what BP owes them. I think BP should pay for the destruction they have caused to the ecosystem around the spill. More than 27 federally-protected species inhabiting the Gulf region were harmed by what is being called “the worst marine oil spill in U.S. history” (2). For example, the peregrine falcon, an animal that used to be on the federal endangered species list, can be affected by the oil spill. They naturally go after wounded animals. If their prey have been contaminated by the oil, it could potentially cause reproductive problems limiting their population rate (3). According to your article, the company responsible for the damage must compensate the United States. Federal law orders that a business that “despoils” a natural habitat must restore the land to its initial condition (1). This law is definitely important to keep a healthy, growing ecosystem.
To begin fixing the damage state and federal officials will issue a NRDA, or the National Resource Damage Assessment. The assessment and plan that follows was mapped out and presented effectively in your article. The officials will draft restoration plans and present them to BP (1). The restoration isn’t going to be a cheap one. I liked that the article mentioned the potential billions of dollars the plan could use. It will be interesting in the future to see what price the government and BP will actually agree on. The quote of Hejdi Feick (BP spokeswoman) shows that there shouldn’t be much disagreement on the issue. “We look forward to working with the state and federal governments in identifying and implementing appropriate projects as soon as possible” (1). The federal government oversees this entire process making sure that all the conditions for repair are met. Seeing the federal government step up and help restore the damaged environment is encouraging to Americans, especially people out there like me who want to see the environment flourish.
I also wanted to comment on the pictures you decided to publish next to the article, and the commentary explaining them. Personally the pictures of the oil-covered belly up birds were disturbing. It was a good idea to link them to the article though, because it shows Americans firsthand the damage that the oil is really doing, and why the government needs to step in. Another thing that caught my attention in the commentary was the quote from an unidentified worker at the shore. His comment was “There is a lot of cover-up for BP. They specifically informed us that they don't want these pictures of the dead animals”(4). I was happy to see the pictures up anyways. Thank you for showing America the truth behind the oil spill, and describing how the damage is being repaired!
Sincerely,
Valerie Killam
2.http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Id=1451413&SM=1
3.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/10/scientists-study-peregrine-falcons-to-determine-effects-of-gulf-oil-spill.html
4.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/06/oils-gruesome-toll-on-wildlife-slowly-emerging/1?csp=obnetwork
Dear Editor,
I recently read and article from the New York Times, written by John M. Broder. The Title was "Climate Change doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith." This title peaked my interest right away. Global warming has been a controvercial topic for quite some time, and the Tea Party has become a recent issue, so I was very interested to see what this article was going to be like.
The main purpose of the article was to explain the Tea Party's stance on global warming. From the very beginning, even starting with the title, I could sense the author's bias toward the liberal view on global warming. "Climate Change Doubt is Tea Party Article of Faith" almost seems mocking of the Tea Party's view, which is against climate change legislation(1). The author say the Tea Party is in denial about global warming, which too me seems like he is saying the Tea Party is simply ignorant on the issue, and don't want to believe something that they, deep down, know is true. Later on in the article there is a quote from a Tea Party supporter, Mr. Dennison, who said, "Global warming is a flat out lie. I read my Bible. He made this earth for us to utilize"(1). Then it is mentioned that "the Tea Party's views align with the fossil fuel industries, which have made lavishly financed anti-global warming studies"(1). This is bashing the Tea Party by back handedly saying that the they took that anti-global warming position just to keep the fossil fuel industry profitable.
This article was very well written, and kept my attention very well, but it was very obviously biased, which may have been the writers intention. I definitely agree that the Tea Party has a very extreme view of anti-global warming. I would have to say that I am in the middle on this subject. I believe that the causes of global warming are partly natural and partly the fault of humans, but I definitely think we should take a pro active stance, and try to protect the earth no matter what the cause of the problem is. One thing I would have liked to see was actual scientific data found on global warming. I feel like that would have strengthened the authors argument. I found a website that gave me some information. The site said that fossil fuel combustion has accounted for 79 percent of global warming potential since 1990(2). Adding this at the end of the reference to the fossil fuel industries would have been a nice touch.
Sincerely,
Bridget McEvoy
Sources
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Global%20Warming%20Skepticism%20in%20Tea%20Party&st=cse
(2)http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/US-GHG-Inventory-2010_Chapter2-Trends.pdf
Letter to the Editor
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?bl
To the editor,
I was appalled by the outright denial of global warming that was exhibited in the article written by Mr. Broder. I disagree strongly with the quote by Ms. Khuri that stated that “Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue” (2). There is scientific evidence that supports the cap and trade system, and in many cases the carbon tax is not economically beneficial for all corporations. There are only a few options for decreasing carbon emissions, and only a couple that are viable for such a large country. These two choices are cap and trade, and a carbon tax (1). While a carbon tax would charge companies for carbon emissions, I feel that placing a price on carbon is difficult (1). A market-esque type system would be more efficient for our government. It would also account for differences in abatement costs between firms.
The article states that since 2009 the oil, coal, and utility industries have spent more than $500 million dollars on lobbying against legislation that addresses climate change and to defeat candidates that are for charging businesses to clean up their acts (1). I think that this shows how much say money has in Washington and that these corporations recognize the problems that they are causing. While enforcing a cap and trade system may be inefficient for corporations, I feel that it is in the publics best interest (3).
While conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin reject global warming on the basis that God gave us the minerals that we use and that they are not meant to destroy us, I feel that this point of view is totally wrong (2). While Mr. Broder highlighted the the points of their argument he did not give any insight into the other sides point of view. I feel that this article could be taken two ways, either as a mocking of the uber conservatives, or as a support piece. I hope it is not the second.
Katie Carr
(1)http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/10/carbon-reduction-beyond-cap-trade-carbon-tax/
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?bl
(3)http://thepage.time.com/2010/10/18/west-virginia-senate-candidates-square-off/
Letter to the Editor!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?npt=NP1
To the editor of CNN:
Moments before I wrote these very words, I finished reading your organization’s article on the recent attempts, and eventual success, of the Obama administration to suspend the ruling made recently that would stop the enforcement of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It irritates me how the Obama administration continues to try to slow progress in various branches of their policies (2) (3) (4), whether they intend to or not, and this is certainly an example of this, such as Obama claiming "it has to be done in a way that is orderly" when the act had basically been done anyway. As such, I like how your article made frequent mention of the fact that Obama and his colleagues are getting heat for this decision and that many people with significant clout disagree with it on a moral and political level.
One thing I especially liked was the quote from Christian Berle, who is actually a Republican, who said, "The armed forces continues to move along and succeed because it is the greatest military in the world," which, although I am not knowledgeable enough about the various militaries of the world to make a call on the last part, illustrates that it doesn’t matter what party you side with, you can see what bad this lifting on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has done: none. There aren’t any stories of flamboyantly gay men making their fellow soldiers uncomfortable, nor any of straight troops quitting the service en masse, life just went on for the people who are really involved in the situation (I would cite something here but it’s difficult to cite a lack of examples).
Another part I quite liked about the article was the focus, after the initial reporting of the base story, shifting to how seemingly hypocritical this move is for the Obama administration, stated better nowhere than “In effect, the administration wants to continue barring gays from the military even though it ultimately favors repealing ‘don't ask, don't tell.’” While the article does a nice job of providing the ultimately problematic situation the administration landed in when the judge made the decision (that is, decision of when to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for them) before they wanted to, it gives the article a more realistic view to maintain a questionable view of the administration and their actions.
All that said I am no conservative. I appreciate what president has done, as a liberal and someone who supported him (though not through voting, for obvious reasons) in his 2008 presidential campaign. I just believe that he has failed to deliver on many of the things he claimed to want to do in his presidency (2) (3) (4), and this case of stonewalling progress regarding Don’t Ask Don’t Tell just epitomizes this to me. I certainly hope that in the future time Obama’s administration has power they will be much more expedient in pushing through motions to support the voters who put them into office.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?npt=NP1
2. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/09/americans_want_more_from_healt.html
3. http://www.tressugar.com/Obamas-Promises-LGBT-Community-Yet-Fulfilled-3321645
4. http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/ObamaImmig.htm
I am responding to: http://www.startribune.com/nation/104799804.html
To whom it may concern,
I was very frustrated and angered by the article about the ruling on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" being delayed and avoided. Though I am in AP Government, I'm not going to pretend like I'm incredibly well informed or that I have the attention span to follow current events. All I know is that the only grandparents I have left are my two gay granddads, one of whom was in the military, so I care about this issue. I find the Court's need to "move slowly" on this issue completely outrageous. Those who favor dragging out the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have stated that repealing the act too quickly would make soldiers too "uncomfortable with the change." Talk about a euphemism. The Federal Research Council president accused the judge that ruled that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed of not taking the soldier's feelings about it into account. To you, sir, I ask, what about the GAY soldier's feelings, have you thought about them? Why should it matter if gay soldiers are out or not? They should at least have the choice.
This is a civil rights issue, people. Most of us know about the recent teen suicides, which many believe to be related to the students being bullied because of their sexuality (2). According to a study, gay teens are four times more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens, and 90% of GLBT teens report being physically or verbally harassed in 2009 (2). I myself know a lesbian student who was shoved against a locker and verbally abused when she participated in the Day of Silence. Don't Ask Don't Tell is simply an extension of this bullying and discrimination, on a much larger scale. Gay soldier William Gordon explained that he felt that he needed to be open about his sexuality with fellow soldiers to build a level of trust (1). I personally think this is alone an excellent reason to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell - shouldn't people who might die together trust each other? Gordon was discouraged from calling or writing to his partner, as his phone calls were monitored. After writing a letter to the Guard expressing his opposition to "Don't Ask Don't Tell," Gordon was discharged, though the official reason given was that he missed drills (2).
That being said, I was happy to learn that there will be a survey given to soldiers and their families about how they feel about "Don't Ask Don't tell." Gordon seemed to feel that his friends in the army didn't seem to think of him differently after he came out. It was just the people in charge that had a problem (2). So I think this whole argument that the straight soldiers will be uncomfortable is completely wrong. If anything, honesty and open conversation about homosexuality will build trust and make the military stronger.
One more thing, Star Tribune. There's a typo in your article. I don't feel like finding it again, but it's definitely there. FYI.
1. http://www.startribune.com/local/100737159.html
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/gay-teen-suicide_b_760093.html
My article:
Www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21naacp.HTML?ref=politics
To the editor:
I strongly disagreed with the New York Times article, "N.A.A.C.P Report Raises Concerns Within Tea Party Groups." The article described a report by the NAACP that found "proof" the the Tea Party has "'given platform to anti-Semites, racists, and bigots.'" Some of this proof included the fact that minorities are very underrepresented in the party. It is true that there aren't many minorities in the Tea Party, but that is not because it discriminates against them. Minorities are already underrepresented in the Republican party, so it makes sense that there wouldn't be as many minorities in the party. In the US, minorities typically earn less income than white people, so they would also be less likely to support Tea Party beliefs like less government spending and programs. A Tea Party expert, Jonathan Rauch, acknoledged that there are few minorities in the party, but said that "I don't think that's because they're racist. I don't think they are. I think it's because they're conservatives and conservatives tend to attract more white voters than minority voters"(1).
The report also said that theTea Party leaders reacted angrily when a NAACP resolution asked them to denounce their members who use racist language. The article used this a proof that the party is racist, but it is not sufficient evidence. The Tea Party obviously doesn't want to bring negative attention to their party, so they probably reacted this way because the NAACP associated their party with racism, which is not true of the party as a whole.
Lastly, the evidence the report used to show how the Tea Party was racist was not valid. It said that some black congressmen mentioned Tea Party supporters shouting racist insults at them during a protest, but there is no proof that the event actually happened. Even Vice President Joe Biden said that although he didn't agree with the Tea Party, it isn't a
..."racist organization." Even if some members of the Tea Party supporters are racist, it does not characterize the party as a whole, and the NAACP should not have directly associated the party with racism.
Sincerely,
Abby Reudelsterz
Sources:
1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/09/15/129876488/who-is-the-tea-party-republicans-by-another-name
2)http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/18/tea-party-racist-organization-biden-says
An open letter to the LA Times regarding your article “GOP Gearing up for White House Investigation”(1)
As a follower of the 2010 elections, I think your article regarding the GOPs plans to more closely examine the actions of the White House is great topic to look at. This article ties in the current policies in Washington to those that are proposed by the Republicans, while also examining the effects of a Republican victory on election day.
When President Obama came into office he promised to be the most “the most ethical administration in history” (2). His administration has failed the American people in this regard. As Rep. Issa’s experiences show the administration is slow or does not respond to opponents requests for information. The problem with this is that it creates a shadow of darkness over the administrations ethics. The administration could be overrun by letters or it could be choosing to ignore the letter entirely regardless the perception has formed that the administration is trying to hide something. While this is only a perception Republicans can use this as ammunition against the Democrats this November.
I agree with the Republicans in the article who plan to use the power they gain from the election to get answers. They plan to use the power subpoena and other tactics to learn what the administration has down over the past 2 year(1). I think this is the only way to get the administration to talk, but I am worried that some Republicans could overuse the power and dig into topics such as, Is Obama a muslim? The examination of these types of topics will cause the Republicans to loose any trust that the American people have given them.
The final bit of the article hints that the Obama administration hopes to pass legislation on issues that they have not worked on yet, but plan to before 2012 (1). These issues include immigration and climate change. The Obama administration can’t push through unpopular policies if he plans on getting a second term. Americans have little support for the regulation overhaul in the financial industry, and healthcare. (3) President Obama used a lot of political clout to pass these bills, and the American public does not seem to care. This should serve as a warning to Obama that the American people are sick of the sam old, same old in Washington Republicans and Democrats specifically the Obama administration should stop the political games and create a new era of bipartisanship in Washington.
Sincerely,
David Sandness
GOP gearing up for White House Investigations.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-vs-congress-20101021,0,6803116.story
Obama Ethics Reform Pledge faces Early Test
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/politics/03lobby.html
Financial Overhaul Plan Draws Weak Public Support
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/10/21/financial-regulation-overhaul-draws-weak-public-support/?KEYWORDS=reform
The article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/politics/15military.html?scp=5&sq=don't%20ask%20don't%20tell&st=cse.
My thoughts:
To the Editor,
Upon reading the article entitled "Obama seeks stay on Don't Ask Don't Tell Ruling" I feel extremely compelled to write back in response because this information absolutely infuriates me. Obama promised to repeal this horrendous act early in his presidency, and I had no doubt that this was because of his own personal beliefs. But now I think that he is being heavily influenced by some particular person or group of people because of his deliberate attempt to delay social progress. The reasons for this particular thought? Obama and his administration said that the reason they put a stay on the judge's ruling that DADT is unconstitutional is because they needed more time to sort everything out in terms of new policies regarding gay people in the military (1). My question is why in the heck weren't they working on that before? As the president, if you are anticipating removing such a contoversial policy like DADT, you should be working on figuring out what new policies will be and also starting to implement them. As President, Obama should have been working on this long ago. Since 1993, DADT has discharged over 13,000 soldiers simply because they were gay (2). Those men and women would have been a tremendous asset to our military and could have even helped us to get out of the Middle East faster. If others don't agree that the law is unfair, they must agree that it is detrimental to our national security.
Now that everything has been said and done though, I believe that there is another way that the President can go about getting rid of DADT. If the President tells the appelate court that he believes the law is unconstitutional, while still arguing that steps must be taken before the law is truly abolished (if it ever is). This provides room for lawyers, Congress, and other outside groups to argue against it and also helps to convince the Supreme Court of the unconstitutionality of the policy if a case should ever make it to them (2- I know that was a bit confusing so please check this one out). Walter Dellinger wrote of this method that has been tried twice before by other Presidents, and also believes that if Obama and his administration present a united front of military personnel who believe that the policy is unfair, the appelate courts would be more likely to respond in a favorable way because of the clear and unified position they would all be presenting (2). More attention should be paid to the article that Mr. Dellinger wrote because it truly has the answers that Obama may be seeking. All in all, Obama really needs to figure out what he wants. Does he want to be seen as a hypocrite, or as someone who worked to get rid of a policy that infringes on the first amendment rights of certain soldiers in the U.S armed forces?
Source 1:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/politics/15military.html?scp=5&sq=don't%20ask%20don't%20tell&st=cse.
Source 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?scp=1&sq=don't%20ask%20don't%20tell&st=cse:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
To the Editor,
In a recent article from the New York Times titled, “A Grim Portrait of Civilian Deaths in Iraq” it cast the light that I have been searching for in the blackness that is the Iraq War. I rarely hear of civilian deaths that are so often shielded by our media because it sheds a negative light on our “men and women overseas.” The reason the media doesn’t report Iraqi civilian deaths is because it would humanize the enemy (1). Since the 2003 invasion, projections of upwards than 100,000 civilians have died from violence according to the Iraqi Body Count (2). Congress has claimed that these figures are inflated which in all actuality, may be true, but that does not excuse the fact that thousands of civilians are dying with no end in sight (3).
Sadly, it is not only American troops that continually engage upon civilians, the local militias also bomb and kill their people (3). One of the worst instances was in December 2006, when 3,800 civilians were killed; this number parallels the deaths of NYC for the last seven years (3).
I am sick and tired of all the innocents of the world acting as collateral in a war they inherited. I’m not necessarily pro or anti-war, but I am anti-killing people because they’re in the way. The media would change drastically for counting civilian deaths if the war took place in the streets of America. People left and right would have their stories heard and stronger action would take place, but because Iraq is the enemy and also happens to be across the world, nobody seems to care about the innocent. I find it amazing how people can systematically store and delete information that they deem to upset the natural order. American society’s ‘perfect’ world is maintained that way by apathy and ignorance, something of which can be changed if the news decided to broadcast it.
None of these data would have even been seen if not for the ACLU and their demands to have the information released through the Freedom of Information Act (4). I understand that the government wants to keep secrets, (I mean, c’mon, most people don’t want to know what the president knows) but certain things should be public domain. Even in the lowest of standards, it’s foolish to keep a record of American soldiers’ deaths but not Iraqi’s.
All in all, the article written will hopefully shed light on the darkest side of war. I see many articles about American forces and the Taliban, but never about Iraqi civilians. People’s eyes should be opened at least a crack to the happenings of reality so thank you for writing this article.
1) http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/qa/aclu-ibc/
2) http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
4) http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/qa/aclu-ibc/
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/politics/15military.html?scp=5&sq=don't%20ask%20don't%20tell&st=cse.
To the editor,
In regards to the article printed on October 14 (Obama Seeks Stay on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Ruling)m on regarding President Obama's stance on ‘don’t ask don’t tell’, I believe all readers can sense the tension within the article. In a time when so many people are giving up on the government, I cannot find the positivity of an article that focuses on President Obama’s incompetency with staying on his original platform. I agree with the facts presented in the article in the sense that I, too, and disappointed in the President’s recent support of Congress overturning DADT, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up on the President and what I expect of him.
Reporter Charlie Savage describes the President’s “awkward political position” twice in the article, instigating Obama tiptoeing around his supporters and disappointing everyone (1). Swarthmore student Jacob Sandry recently blogged about the country’s overall decline of faith in Barack Obama, addressing the situation with the qualifier that “Barack Obama is not God. Barack Obama is not our savior. Barack Obama will not singlehandedly create the good life for every man woman and child in the U.S. Barack Obama will not create world peace in 4 years.”(2)
I would have to agree completely with Mr. Sandry and take the New York Times article in a slanderous way. Although I am strongly against the President’s decision on DADT, that does not mean that I should tear him apart and wonder what he has been doing with his time in office.
I am taking this article with a grain of salt, and instead focusing on what really matters: The repeal of the ban on ‘don’t ask don’t tell’. The true issue lies in the policy itself. It is a disrespectful, hateful part of our military. Who gets to play God and choose the soldiers who want to give up their lives to protect the country? I would firmly disagree if someone were to say it was Congress’ place. I may not be a supporter of the war, but who I am to tell someone who is gay that they can’t fight for what the believe in. That, not the President’s inconvenient decision is the heart of the matter.
Sincerely,
Rachel Berkowitz
Co-Chair-Bloomington Teen Job Fair
Youth Co-Chair-Bloomington United for Youth
952-649-7452
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/politics/15military.html?SCP=5&sq=don't%20ask%20don't%20tell&st=cse.
2) http://www.facebook.com/notes/jacob-sandry/hows-that-hope-and-change-pretty-good-actually-why-i-still-support-obama-part-1/474596214046
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html
To the editor,
Not only does your article “Climate Change Doubt is Tea Party Article of Faith” serve to show the extremism of the Tea Party, but it also sheds light on climate change's effect on us socially. The Tea Party reflects an alarming shift in just how strong argument based on opinion and bias can be considered in contrast to fact based argument. The article represents the challenges that the environmental movement faces, but also the strength in the movement to recognize its challenges.
I believe that the majority of people who don't believe in global warming have not even begun to consider the interests of the large companies that fund their movements. The simple fact that people can try to argue against the reality of global climate change, which has already been widely accepted among the scientific community, continues to baffle me. Fiscally driven oil and coal companies have proven time and time again that they do not have the interest of the people in mind, only of their profits. Personally, I am utterly disgusted at the selfishness of these companies and their lack of alarm over our pending sustainability as a planet.
Despite my dissatisfaction of how governments across the world have not been able to pass successful policy to combat climate change, I don't believe that it can be the only solution to this problem. In order to seriously solve the issue, a social revolution must occur from the ground up to truly make a difference. With billions of people across the world, we cannot rely on the political elite to make movements for us. The power that individuals hold in relatively small changes we can make to our daily lives can amplify exponentially if enough individuals make the necessary changes. Changes in both individuals and government policy will be the true solution to creating a sustainable world for future generations to live in. However insurmountable this mountain of an issue may seem, I remain hopeful.
Sincerely,
a highly concerned but optimistic teenage youth,
Justin Sengly
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/21/obama.back.yard/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Dear Editor,
I am responding to your recent article “Obama says he should have advertised policies better.” In your article successfully show and quote Obama on what he said in the backyard event he took place in last Thursday. He felt that he should have advertised his policy on how he was going to make the economy better, and that the Republicans plans to fix the economy wouldn’t really work. In Obama’s own words he said that he was too busy trying to make the policy right, so he didn’t have time to advertise it and make it sound amazing. I believe that that is only partly true; yes, I’m sure that Obama was taking a lot of time out to fix the policy but I think that he is only saying that now because so many people are confident that the Republican Party can do so much better at fixing the economy. As a poll CNN had conducted stated that 47% of adults questioned believed that the Republican policies were more likely to fix the economy compared to the 41% saying that the Democratic policies would (1). But it was surprising to see that the Independents are partly to blame for this reaction since Independents tend to blame the GOP for the economic problems but support the policies the GOP has for the economy (1). Also when you start quoting Obama on how he said that the Republican policies wouldn’t work for fixing the economy I wished that you would put some examples or stated the things Obama said that wouldn’t work. I had to look up some of their views (2), but I was not able to find anything about what Obama specifically disagreed with.
Sincerely,
Savannah Nye
1. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/27/cnn-poll-plurality-say-gop-would-do-a-better-job-fixing-economy/
2. http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/issues/
Http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2009299,00.html
“Confessions of a Gay Weapon of Marital Destruction” - by Jose Fidelino
Dear Editor,
This article is one of the best pieces of work on the subject of gay marriage that I have read in a long time. I think that, without a doubt, blaming America's troubles in the family and marriage on gay marriage is ridiculous. A gay union is not the cause for Britney's marital issues with K-Fed, nor Chris Brown's abuse of Rihanna. The existence of homosexuals does not equate to the existence of divorce, or polygamy. Not only are those two unrelated subjects (like saying its the orange farmers' fault that the apple harvest is bad), but it also is completely wrong. Gay marriages are just the same as straight marriages, only they have had to fight harder for their love.(1)
Not only are they innocent on all accounts, but theses marriages can actually, pardon the expression, redesign our economy. Because of the combination of couples' taxes when they are married, gay marriages could lead to an annual income tax increase of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion. Also, if 500,000 gay couples were to marry, it would result in wedding costs of $4.75 billion. Not only would gay couples be getting married, but divorced as well (assuming their rates of divorce would be the same as us “regular” people). This would mean billions of dollars towards divorce lawyers as well.(2)
Now that the subject of gay marriage helping the economy is out of the way, I would like to address the subject of gay marriage now. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by President Clinton in 1996, the federal government defines marriage as a union between couples of the opposite-sex couples and ignores the “full faith and credit clause”, stopping gay couplings to be recognized in other states. DOMA now denies approximately 1,100 federal benefits to gay unions, allows the federal government to simply think of them as “roommates,” and considers all their children illegitimate. Above all, Canada has legalized gay marriage. Canada. As of 2005. Do we really want Canada to show us up like that? I don't think so.(3)
Your steadfast lover-of-gays,
Erika Sasseville
(1)http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2009299,00.html
(2)http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/gay_marriage.htm?p=1
(3)http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
Letter to the Editor
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?bl
To the editor,-I chose the same article as Katie CARR
I thought that you did a great job of getting right down to the nitty gritty of the topic. I strongly agree with the idea of the cap-and-trade regulations because that tends to be the best at stopping pollution. Even though the previous writer on the this article, Katie Carr, thinks that the cap-and-trade model of reducing pollution is ineffective, it truly is effective. In this type of system, they use marketable permits. This is where the government issues out permits to every company and for the companies that need more pollution permits, they buy them from the companies that produce less pollution, thus driving companies to be more efficient. (1) I feel that this is a great solution to global warming.
The article states that since 2009 the oil, coal, and utility industries have spent more than $500 million dollars on lobbying against legislation that addresses climate change and to defeat candidates that are for charging businesses to clean up their acts. In my opinion this shows that the oil, coal, and utility industries will go to extremes to oppose the bills, but I feel that if we use the permit system, it will cause companies to become more efficient because they won’t want to go through the hassle of buying extra pollution permits. (2)
I felt that this article was very one sided and that he only represented one side of the issue. In a good article, the reporter will issue both sides of the issue and interview more people than he did. Had he done that, I feel he would have had a more credible article.
Sources:
1. http://www.revisionguru.co.uk/economics/govern5.htm
2. http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR1995-03.pdf
Editor,
I thought the article “Obama says he forgot to advertise.” This article shows President Obama at a backyard get together in Seattle. Obama discusses the countries deficit. I thought that in the article a very positive image of Obama was painted. I thought it seemed a little biased. All the quotes that were used only showed one side. The article should have showed both point of views not just President Osama’s “When I arrived at the white house I inherited a 1.3 trillion deficit.” This quote makes it seem like Obama is blameless for the state the economy is in. Obviously it’s not his fault, but it is his job to help fix it. This article didn’t give any plans that he has to help the economy, only that the Republican’s are wrong about how to fix it and what the problem is.(1) I’m kind of sick of politicians only ever saying why other people are wrong, but not contributing to the right answer. The Republicans have major budget cuts planed. (2) I’m not sure if this is realistic, and Obama might be right about not working. I feel an editor should be able to publish both points of view rather than just Obama talking about why Republican’s are wrong.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/21/obama.back.yard/index.html?hpt=Sbin
2. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-27/republicans-plan-budget-cuts-as-early-act-if-they-take-power.html
In Response to Val:
I just wanted to first start off with a few positives. I really enjoyed the way you constructed your argument and I enjoy how you put ethos into it because it can really persuade people’s opinions when reading this. On the negative side I do however feel that British Petroleum shouldn’t have to pay for the entire ecosystem damages. I feel that the leak was an accident and they have spent millions of dollars to fix it. Yes, the ecosystem was damaged, but what is that money going to even do to the ecosystem. I feel as though the money spent could be going to something else. Yes, I feel bad for the animals and all of the things that were killed and mutated, but what will all of that money even do to help clean up the mess. I feel like there is only so much you can do to clean up the mess. (1)
I do agree with you however on the fact that the pictures were actually distributing. I went and visited the site that you posted and I agree that the pictures were horrifying. However, I feel that they put them in for a specific reason because they wanted shows us, the readers, how bad the oil spill was to the economy. (2)
Overall, you did a great job; I just felt that BP shouldn’t get all of the blame. Everyone else may have different opinions, but that it my opinion.
Sources:
1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100929/sc_afp/usoilpollutionenvironmentbp_20100929031804
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/
Dear Editor,
I thought that the article "Amtrak to spend $466 million to buy 70 locomotives for Northeast, Keystone corridors" was an excellent article. This seems like a good move by the company. The building of these new trains will create new jobs in the US (not tons, but any job makes a difference!) (1). Also, these trains will be much cleaner than the old trains (1). They will be very environmentally friendly and it will be delightful. Also, these new trains are high speed and they will make travelling around New England super easy (2). They will connect many major cities and make travel between them incredibly easy and painless. This seems like a good move, especially since last year the use of trains in the North East was up over 5%, which is a pretty major change in one year (3)! This was a good article and it was informative.
1. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/243/488/Next_Stop:_Amtrak_s_New_Trains_Brake_for_Clean_Energy.html
2. http://www.gearlog.com/2010/10/amtrak_unveils_northeast_high-.php
3. http://www.startribune.com/business/106219253.html?page=2&c=y
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home