Monday, May 12, 2014

Final Essay


Emma Richman
RWS 200
April 27th, 2014

Educational Inequality

Educational inequality is greatly determined by social and economic status. The better social and economic status you have the more likely you are going to get a good education, and it seems to be the opposite for people with poor social and economic status. However, Paul Krugman author of “Confronting Inequality” sees social and political inequality as the largest reasons for our poor economy. Conversely, Charles Murray author of “The New American Divide” believes inequality in America comes from cultural inequality. Contrary to their ideas I see the major reason for economic inequality in America coming from issues within our education system. In this essay I will explain Krugman and Murray’s stances on inequality and then explain how my idea of inequality is most sound. To further support my argument, I will analyze an article written by George Farkas a professor at Penn State University titled “How Educational Inequality develops”. In addition I will look at “Inequality at the Starting Gate” by David T. Burkham. Lastly I will use the video Social Mobility in America by American Enterprise Institute to help my position qualify Krugman’s argument for inequality.
Krugman believes that Americans do not have equal opportunity due to social and political inequality. The less social support a family has, the less money they are able to spend on their children’s health, nutrition and overall well-being. Krugman makes it a point that our lack of universal health care puts children who come from a low-income family at a major disadvantage. And because children from low-income families are usually uninsured they are now more likely to have health issues that could affect decisions they make throughout the rest of their lives, decreasing their chances of rising in the economic latter. Not only does social inequality lead to poor healthcare for these children, but they are now missing opportunities to make connections, meet people and network with others. Conversely, children born into high-income families have access to healthcare and are exposed to opportunities at a young age that children from low-income families will never see. In addition to economic inequality creating social inequality, political inequality is another large factor leading to the corruption of our nation as well. Krugman believes that “rising inequality has to an important extent been caused by the rightward shift of our politics” (Krugman 593). The Republican party has been strongly benefiting from the wealthy getting wealthier. Ultimately the extreme political inequality our nation is seeing is stemming from poor income distribution. These large amounts of inequality “strain the bonds that hold us together as a society” and is leading people to believe that “growing inequality is behind our growing cynicism” (Krugman 593). Krugman’s solutions to social inequality and political inequality involve undoing many of the tax cuts for the wealthy that the conservatives have been strongly advocating for since 1980. Large amounts of revenue will be generated if the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire by 2010. Because social security seems very reliable now a days, universal healthcare should be something we strive to achieve. Krugman also see’s it wise to tax capital gain because it will “yield significantly more revenue and limit the range of tax abuses like the hedge fund loophole”. (Krugman 597). It may also be possible to reduce inequality through creating a newly empowered US union movement. Empowering the middle class and poor to rise economically and ultimately eliminating social and political inequality will result in a happier and more successful nation. 
Charles Murray sees cultural inequality as the main reason for the gap between the rich and poor. In the article “New American Divide” by Charles Murray, he states that “For most of our nation's history, whatever the inequality in wealth between the richest and poorest citizens, we maintained a cultural equality known nowhere else in the world—for whites, anyway.”(Murray 1). Murray believes that culture is the main reason for economic inequality in America due to people’s desires for different lifestyles. According to Murray, marriage, single parenthood, industriousness, crime, and religiosity are all major factors playing into cultural inequality. In 1960, 94% of upper class workers with at least a bachelor’s degree were married while only 84% of the lower class with no degree were married. However in 2010 only 48% of the lower class were married while the upper class dropped to only 83%. On top of low marriage rates now a days, nonmarital births are becoming extremely prevalent and highly problematic in our society. When it comes to industriousness Murray believes “the primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class is the increase of prime-age males with no more than a high school education who say they are not available for work” (Murray 2). Traditionally American men were always either looking for work or working. However present day one out of eight are not doing either of these. As the years progressed the crime rates within the upper class seemed to stay the same while crime rates within the lower class increased greatly. Lastly when Murray discusses how religiosity plays a role in cultural inequality he says “whatever your personal religious views are- religious Americans account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors” (Murray 2). Our nation as a whole has become more and more secular since 1960, especially the lower income citizens which greatly affects the culture of our nation. The major differences in these categories are what’s putting the wealthy and the poor into different cultures.  Lastly, Murray does believe that there is a difference of quality of education within the classes. He explains how the upper class obtains their wealth through advanced education from the elite universities while the lower class is experiencing economic issues because of “withdrawal from America’s core cultural institutions” (Murray 1). Although educational inequality is mentioned in Murrays piece, it is very evident that he does not see this as the main reason for economic inequality.
Unlike Krugman and Murray, I believe the main reason for income inequality in America has to do primarily with education. Not only does education provide knowledge but it leads to the progression of ones career, character building, and ultimately the success of a nation. Whether people want to believe it or not the enrichment of our society relies greatly on a strong education. Education gives us the fundamentals we need in order to specialize in certain fields of interest. The more specialists and professionals America sees the more economic equality that will be generated. George Farkas, a professor at Penn State University wrote a piece titled “How Educational Inequality Develops” where he discusses the stages of education beginning with pre-school all the way to PHD’s. According to Farkas, “the credentials of schooling completed and degrees attained, as well as the skills and capabilities associated with these credentials - is an important determinant of socioeconomic success”. Income differentials within races also play a large roll in the quality of education one receives. Farkas believes that in general “families with higher social status (measured by education, income, and occupation) and those embedded in stronger networks of social relationships have more resources available” while on the contrary families with lower social status and weaker networks and relationships have less resources available to them and are less likely to have a stronger education. If the government can increase educational funding to public schools, the quality of education will increase. The more money we generate towards schools educating the middle and lower class, the stronger education those children will see. It has been proven that the better quality education one receives the more likely they will be successful later in life. By providing under privileged kids with a strong educational foundation at a young age, the more opportunity they will see throughout their life. The right to a good education for all citizens no matter their economic status should be a goal our nation is dedicated to achieving. It is inevitable that our economy will flourish with an increased number of college graduates. The skill level of America’s labor force will positively benefit from an increased rate in higher education. The more education one receives, the greater their skills will become, and ultimately the better certain local economies will be doing because the quality of their production will increase leading to higher rates of profitability.
David T. Burkham author of “Inequality at the Starting Gate” discusses how lower income citizens have access to schools with fewer resources causing a poor education while higher income citizens have access to schools with plentiful resources leading to a bright future and solid education.  Schools with little access to good resources leads them to “ face greater difficulties attracting qualified teachers, face many more challenges in addressing student’s needs, and receive less support from parents.” (Burkham). Burkham explains how socioeconomic status is strongly related to children’s cognitive skills. The quality of a school is determined by more school resources, more qualified teachers, better neighborhood or school conditions and lastly student achievement. All of these factors derive from a higher income society. Children with lower incomes generally start school in a lower quality elementary school compared to higher income children attending more elite elementary schools. Burkham believes a solution to educational inequality might be “reducing the inequality of school resources- would aid in reducing the inequality that children and schools face at the starting gate”. I believe the solution to this is straightforward and simple. Supply these lower income regions with the resources they need to run successful schools. The problem with educational inequality begins with children’s pre-education. A solution to this would be to invest in the middle and lower classes early educational years. By exposing children to higher levels and quality of education at a young age, this will increase their motivation to continue higher levels of education as the year’s progress.  
The video Social Mobility in America by American Enterprise Institute helps my position on inequality to qualify Krugman’s argument. According to the video “economic mobility is highly correlated with residential segregation, education, labor market opportunities, and family structure”. Krugman believes that social inequality is one of the main reasons for economic inequality. Low- income citizens experience less opportunity due to their poor social status. Social Mobility in America states that “high school drop out rates are also highly correlated with low upward mobility” and that improving bad neighborhoods will help economic inequality. Social inequality is also correlated to low upward mobility. If low-income neighborhoods have the chance to attend better schools than this can counteract with neighborhood disadvantages.
There have also been multiple issues with public schools experiencing major defunding. This defunding results in the loss of art programs, music programs and even Spanish in K-8 due to lack of government support. Higher income families fortunately do not see much of this in the schools their children are attending however many middle class and poor citizens are experiencing the government defunding important programs. In conclusion, although cultural inequality and public policy play a large roll in inequality in America I see the main problem to be our education. If we can increase the quality of education the middle class and the poor are receiving, our nation as a whole will become so much better off. To do this we need to focus on the middle class and make sure kids are seeing good education starting at a young age. The younger our nation targets children and teaches them the importance of education, the brighter future we have.





















Sources Cited

"Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children
begin school." Economic Policy Institute. Web. 12 May 2014

"Social Mobility in America: Still the Land of Opportunity?" YouTube. YouTube, 19
Mar. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.

Krugman, Paul. Conscience of a Liberal. 2007. 586-603. Web.

Murray, Charles “The New American Divide” Web. 

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Proposition for final essay


For my essay I am going to discuss how poor access to education and lack of education is a major factor contributing to increasing inequality in America. Educational inequality is greatly determined by social and economic status. The better social and economic status you have the more likely you are going to get a good education, and it seems to be the opposite for people with poor social and economic status. I will analyze an article written by George Farkas a professor at Penn State University titled “How Educational Inequality develops”. I will also analyze an article written by Jaap Dronkers titled “Features of Educational Systems as Factors in the Creation of Unequal Educational Outcomes”.  The last article I will look at is “Inequality at the Starting Gate” by David T. Burkham. 

Friday, April 11, 2014

Inequality Essay


Emma Richman
RWS 200

Inequality

Economic inequality can be defined as the difference between individuals or populations in the distributions of their assets, wealth or income. In order for us to see a greater society everyone deserves a chance at economic success. Unfortunately economic equality has been a major struggle for America as a nation for quite some time now which has caused major gaps between the wealthy and the poor. Arthur Brooks, social scientist and author of many political and economic issues, discusses in his  diIn this essay I will discuss how cultural aspects, technology, globalization and political policy play a large effect on economic inequality in the united states through the analysis of these different authors.
In Arthur Brook’s article “Inequality and Unhappiness in America”, he makes it a solid point that inequality does not directly correlate with unhappiness. If our leaders focus on getting rid of income inequality then the underlying problem, lack of income mobility and unhappiness, will not improve. Brooks believes that we are “mistaking symptom for root cause.” In Maura Penningtons article, “To Fix Income Inequality, the Have- Nots Must Become the Do- Somethings” she states that we must “forget our misguided and nihilistic inclinations to pillage the wealthiest among us.” Pennington on the other hand, does not believe that the wealthy are the reason for inequality. Instead, she thinks that we should look up to the wealthy and use their success as motivation to do better for ourselves. Instead of redistributing a static supply of resources to the poor and middle class, Pennington believes we must establish stable institutions to empower people to be free and productive. In the article “New American Divide” by Charles Murray, he states that “everyone in the new monetary upper class has the resources to make a wide variety of decisions that determine whether they engage themselves or their children in the rest of America or whether they isolate themselves from it” Murray believes that culture is the main reason for economic inequality. All of these articles make is seem like economic inequality is not the major issue. Each article brings up different reasons for the struggle our economy is facing rather than blaming it solely on economic inequality.
Reich would disagree with many of these articles. Reich said that the united state has the most unequal distribution of income out of all the countries and this is the reason we are struggling as a nation. Like I stated earlier, Pennington makes it a point that inequality is not the issue. Instead we should see economic inequality as motivation to do better and move up the economic latter to achieve success. Reich said that in order to have a strong and successful economy it is crucial to have a vibrant and growing middle class. Brook’s would say to this that the middle class needs to work harder in order to help themselves. Reich also stated that it is extremely important to invest in people, the workforce and the middle class. According to Pennington, redistributing resources to the middle class is not going to do anything. We need to encourage people instead to be free and productive on their own. Krugman and Reich believe inequality is a problem when it is extreme and when it is connected with low levels of mobility and opportunity. Because then it makes it hard for people to get out of their social standings.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Arthur Brooks, Maura Pennington, Charles Murray


In Arthur Brook’s article “Inequality and Unhappiness in America”, he makes it a solid point that inequality does not directly correlate with unhappiness. If our leaders focus on getting rid of income inequality then the underlying problem, lack of income mobility and unhappiness, will not improve. Brooks believes that we are mistaking symptom for root cause. In Maura Penningtons article, “To Fix Income Inequality, the Have- Nots Must Become the Do- Somethings” she states that we must “forget our misguided and nihilistic inclinations to pillage the wealthiest among us.” Pennington does not believe that the wealthy are the reason for inequality. She thinks that we should look up to the wealthy and use their success as motivation to do better for ourselves. Instead of redistributing a static supply of resources to the poor and middle class, Pennington believes we must establish stable institutions to empower people to be free and productive. In the article “New American Divide” by Charles Murray, he states that “everyone in the new monetary upper class has the resources to make a wide variety of decisions that determine whether they engage themselves or their children in the rest of America or whether they isolate themselves from it” Murray believes that culture is the main reason for economic inequality. All of these articles make is seem like economic inequality is not the major issue. Each article brings up different reasons for the struggle our economy is facing rather than blaming it solely on economic enequality.

Reich would disagree with many of these articles. Reich said that the united state has the most unequal distribution of income out of all the countries and this is the reason we are struggling as a nation. Like I stated earlier, Pennington makes it a point that inequality is not the issue. Instead we should see economic inequality as motivation to do better and move up the economic latter to achieve success. Reich said that in order to have a strong and successful economy it is crucial to have a vibrant and growing middle class. Brook’s would say to this that the middle class needs to work harder in order to help themselves. Reich also stated that it is extremely important to invest in people, the workforce and the middle class. According to Pennington, redistributing resources to the middle class is not going to do anything. We need to encourage people instead to be free and productive on their own. Krugman and Reich believe inequality is a problem when it is extreme and when it is connected with low levels of mobility and opportunity. Because then it makes it hard for people to get out of their social standings. 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Inequality for All and Krugman questions




According to Reich, the United States has the most unequal distribution of income out of all countries. The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million US citizens combined. Inequality started to increase in the 1970’s-80’s. As income got more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands the financial sector bloomed on certain things. The middle class’s incomes were stagnating and so the middle class went deeper and deeper into debt to maintain their living conditions. Reich makes it a point that it is extremely necessary to have a strong vibrant and growing middle class in order to have a good economy. The problem isn’t that the rich spend too much its actually that they spend too little and this ultimately results in not enough economic activity. Instead they end up saving that money and become part of the global economic market rather than solely the United States economic market. Most of the return they get on their invested money doesn’t do anything for our economy it only gives return to their specific bank accounts, which is a huge issue. People would be less concerned about inequality and wealth if they were able to move up the income latter and make it financially. However as income inequality rises, upward mobility is way less likely than it was before. Inequality is clearly linked to higher education because it helps to lift people out of poverty. However by the 70’s higher education was becoming harder to obtain. Reich believes the most important thing is to invest in people, our work force and middle class. He believes if workers don’t have a voice then their wages will suffer. Big companies are not designed to create good jobs in the united states they are designed to make profit, and that’s an issue.  

·                                  Krugman believes that Americans do not have equal opportunity. Because children from low income families are usually uninsured they are now more likely to have health issues that could affect decisions they make throughout the rest of their lives. Inequality corrupts our politics. High levels of inequality also strains the bond that holds us together as a society. Krugman says “there is convincing evidence that growing inequality is behind our growing cynicism, which is making the united states seem growingly like a Latin American country” He believes that getting rid of inequality means undoing many of the tax cuts for the wealthy the movement conservatives pushed through since 1980. Krugman stated that he believes in order to progressively restore the tax system the Bush tax cuts for the very well off need to expire at the end of 2010 as planned. He also believes that a newly empowered US union movement would reduce inequality.  

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Analyze a Fallay


Demonizing is a very prevalent fallacy used by Wallace in his speech. When describing the government he makes multiple references to satan. He states, “We find we have replaced faith with fear and though we may give lip service to the Almighty, in reality, government has become our god. It is, therefore, a basically ungodly government and its appeal to the pseudo-intellectual and the politician is to change their status from servant  of the people to master of the people, to play at being God without faith in God and without the wisdom of God. It is a system that is the very opposite of Christ for it feeds and encourages everything degenerate and base in our people as it assumes the responsibilities that we ourselves should assume.” He uses words like “ungodly” and then claims that the government is “the very opposite of christ” to make the federal government seem devilish. He uses this in order to have a stronger affect on his audience. By making the government seem like the devil, people will see them in a different light and are more likely to agree with Wallace’s argument. Wallace demonizes the government to make it hard for his audience to disagree with him. If they were to disagree then they can personally be demonized. 

Monday, March 3, 2014

Wallace Scapegoating and Weaknesses


Scapegoating: 

According to Roberts miller, “Parties must not prevent each other from advancing stand- points or casting doubt on standpoints.”41 Various strategies that attempt to do this—threatening harm, engaging in personal attack, trying to discredit the interlocutor—are fallacious because they try to prevent the disagreement from happening at all, thereby precluding its being resolved”. Wallace does this quite a bit when he talks about the government. He uses ad hominen to blame and personally attack the government for its mistakes. He states, “It is a government that claims to us that it is bountiful as it buys its power from us with the fruits of its rapaciousness of the wealth that free men before it have produced and builds on crumbling credit without responsibilities to the debtors, our children.” Instead of fairly representing his opponents view he uses demogogues to misrepresent the argument. The way Wallace bashes the government makes it seem like they are doing everything wrong and not protecting the people. The easiest way out of a sticky situation is to place blame on someone, therefore Wallace is giving the people someone to point fingers at. In some ways this tactic makes his audience feel hopeful because to find a solution you must first discover what the problem is. If the problem is the government, then they now know what needs to be changed.

Weakness:

Roberts Miller states, “interlocutors must defend their standpoints with relevant forms of argumentation.” However in the beginning of Wallace’s speech he compares his safety in Washington D.C. to a terrorist attack by saying, “I was safer in a B-29 bomber over Japan during the war in an air raid, than the people of Washington are walking to the White House neighborhood.” Instead of defending his standpoint and discussing why he is in the right he attacks his opponents and puts them into a bad light. According to Roberts Miller, Wallace is “Misattributing an argument (such as accusing someone of being on the side of terrorists for disagreeing with the United States), or distorting an argument (such as presenting the weakest version) constitutes violations of this rule.” This is Wallace’s biggest weakness, instead of talking about how the government is doing wrong for Alabama he should be talking about how he can make it better and going into more depth about the benefits of segregation. 

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

George Wallace Inaugural Speech


a)    Wallace tries to open the other southern peoples eye about how they are really living. He believes segregation is the way to live correctly because it promotes safety and security. When addressing the southerners and “natives of the great Mid-West, descendants of the far West flaming spirit of pioneer freedom” instead of being harsh and mean he tells them there is still hope for them to do the right thing. He states “we invite you to come and be with us… you are brothers with us in our fight”. Ultimately Wallace is trying to persuade everyone that Alabama is better than everyone else and that integration is the wrong way to live.

b)   To represent his cause he discusses all of the benefits that Alabama as a whole. He strays away from the topic of segregation to discuss how Alabama has been “blessed by god” with all of its natural resources and plush agriculture. He uses these examples and topics to solidify that Alabama truly is the best state. After discussing this he goes into more about segregation. If whites and blacks join together into one unit like the communist philosophers say then the enrichment of lives and our freedom is gone. He talks about our founding fathers and how they would be disappointed in a nation united at one. Our nation was never meant for that but rather meant for a nation united of the many. “The true brotherhood of America is respecting the separateness of others”. Ultimately he speaks very highly about segregation, Alabama, and conservatives ideas. 

c)    He talks about his opponents in a very bad light and even in an aggressive manner. “We warn those… who would follow the false doctrine of communistic amalgamanation that we will not surrender…”. This quote from Wallace comes off sounding like a threat to those who decide to integrate rather than segregate. He talks about how he is “ashamed” of the people in the south who are deciding that integration is the right way to live. Wallace’s uses harsh words to describe his opponents attempting to shut them down make them seem like they are the ones in the wrong. Basically he speaks about communists as if they are a part of some evil conspiracy attempting to ruin our nation. Where as he speaks about those for segregation as if they are angels sent from above here to fix anything and everything and make a perfect nation.

d)   Wallace definitely uses polarization to discuss black people from white people. His entire speech he is basically saying how white people are the dominant and powerful group and black people should be separated from them or else our “enrichment of life will be decreased”. In addition he uses demonizing to an extreme extent when talking about his opponents. He uses crazy accusations and harsh language to describe their stance on integration.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Intro and first two Paragraphs of essay


            Muslim veiling has recently become a very controversial issue due to security liabilities and transparency issues among citizens. Many people see veiling as a threat and danger to society while others view it as a beautiful and religious tradition. The veil allows women to experience liberation by forcing men to acknowledge them not for their outer beauty but for their intellect, faith and personality. However it is commonly argued that the burqa is a symbol of male domination and objectification and is extremely degrading to women. In this essay I will be comparing two similar yet very different articles that discuss the major problems with veiling through personal and political experience. The first author, Mayson Haydar, describes her personal experience with the burqa through anecdotes and examples of her experiences while wearing it in public. The second author I will talk about, Martha Nussbaum, discusses the issues with the burqa by relaying public arguments and then refuting them with her own reasons.

            Haydar has a few main claims within her piece. The largest claim is that there are major misconceptions about freedom within the muslim religion. She explained how she was riding a bus in New York City when she heard an American make a remark about the way Haydar was dressed and proceeded to explain how she could never dress in such ways because she enjoyed her "freedom". Haydar explains how her clothing choice in fact allows for more freedom than an American in tight jeans, a face full of makeup and curled hair. Muslim women in her religion are allowed to enjoy the same things as anyone else however they do so with respect for themselves. She states how many women subjugate themselves through the way they dress while also centering their lives on being admired for their appearance which is a very meaningless thing to do. Just because muslim women do not flaunt their bodies does not mean they do not cherish it or believe it is unimportant. Veiling strays away from a lifestyle full of harassment and self-loathing yet rather allows for a comfortable life where you're body is able to be appropriately valued. As for strategies Haydar compares and contrasts the ways of life between the muslim community and the non-muslim community. She compares a typical New York women to a muslim women. She uses a lot personal anecdotes from her past and gives plenty of reasoning for why veiling does not necessarily mean no freedom. She includes a lot of personal examples which lead to a stronger connection with her audience which most likely is majority women. She also uses rebuttals to prove her point and make her arguments even more powerful. 

There has been proposed bans on the burqa in many different areas of the world. People see the burqa as a threat to security. Security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places and burqas restrict this from happening. Another argument that was brought up is that transparency between citizens is impeded when people wear burqas. Nussbaum retaliates this argument by explaining how these reasons are completely ignored in the winter time when people walk around, say, New York City bundled head to toe in clothing. Is security and transparency considered then? The answer is no. Another argument that is the burqa is a symbol of male domination which objectifies women. Nussbaum then argues that women in America who get lipsuction, tummy tucks, or breast implants are doing so in order to conform to the males norm of female beauty. Isn't this objectification also? Nussbaum's main argument is that people have a misconception of the burqa and when looked at close enough there are many ironies to the reasons behind banning burqas.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Nussbaum Rebuttals- Strengths and Weaknesses

Rebuttal #1

A prominent argument today is that the burqa is a symbol of male domination that symbolizes objectification of women. Nussbaum's rebuttal to this argument is ultimately very strong however there are some weaknesses with it. She explains how our society is full of symbols of male supremacy that treat women as objects. For example tight jeans, seductive magazines and photos of women, plastic surgery, tummy tucks, etc. Nussbaum makes her point that these things are done in order to satisfy men. However I disagree with this in some sense. Just because women are concerned with their image and physical appearance does not mean that they are doing it solely to please men. I personally wear make up and enjoy looking presentable for my own satisfaction and no one else's. I feel confident and good about myself when I look good. Nussbaum is making an assumption here about western women in this sense. However she talks about how people who make this argument typically don't know much about Islam and would have a hard time determining what symbolizes the religion. People make assumptions before doing their research and understanding religions. I agree with this and found it to be a strong argument. Her use of rhetorical strategies were very strong as well. She used some rhetorical questions which helped to get the audience thinking about her points.


Rebuttal #2

It is argued that security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places. Another similar argument says that the kind of "transparency proper to relations between citizens is impeded by covering part of the face." Nussbaum retaliates these arguments by saying how they are applied inconsistently. She then makes a really strong rebuttal point by explaining how people are bundled up head to toe, covering almost all parts of their bodies during winter time in the midwest and yet there is no issue with security or transparency. In addition surgeons, dentists, football players, and skiers cover their faces during their professions with no discrimination about it whatsoever. Nussbaum's rebuttal is that we are not banning covering we are banning solely muslim covering. She does a really good job at using examples. In addition Nussbaum explains how Americans dress compared to Muslims and does so in such a way to make her readers see how it is not so much different after all. I thought these comparisons really helped to show how Muslims who veil themselves are not much different than the way Western people dress.



Monday, February 3, 2014

Veiled Threats- Nussbaum

Claims and Summary

There has been proposed bans on the burqa in many different areas of the world. People see the burqa as a threat to security. Security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places and burqas restrict this from happening. Another argument that was brought up is that transparency between citizens is impeded when people wear burqas. Nussbaum retaliates this argument by explaining how these reasons are completely ignored in the winter time when people walk around, say, New York City bundled head to toe in clothing. Is security and transparency considered then? The answer is no. Another argument that is the burqa is a symbol of male domination which objectifies women. Nussbaum then argues that women in America who get lipsuction, tummy tucks, or breast implants are doing so in order to conform to the males norm of female beauty. Isn't this objectification also? Nussbaum's main argument is that people have a misconception of the burqa and when looked at close enough there are many ironies to the reasons behind banning burqas.



Haydar- Strengths and Weaknesses


Haydar Strengths and Weaknesses 

Haydar was very successful in making a strong connection with her audience. She used personal anecdotes and did a very good job at identifying with the readers emotions, also known as pathos. For example she starts off her piece with two quotes from the Quran that give insight as to how her religion operates. She then proceeds into her first paragraph by saying "I have a confession to make". It is then explained how Haydar did not choose to become veiled in order to honor tradition. She choose to be veiled so she could receive a board game called Girl Talk. Later in her piece she compares muslim women to the typical New York city American. She gives an anecdote about how she is sitting on a bus when she hears a woman make a remark about the way she is dressed. Haydar explains how this girls idea of freedom consists of "beauty products, plastic surgery, and self-help guides". Her perception of freedom consisting of loads of make up, complicated hairstyles and tight jeans is in fact way more oppressive and painful than the veil Haydar wears. Through veiling muslim women in fact experience more freedom and respect. Haydar writes about the misconception of freedom and beauty through comparative situations. I thought Haydar's piece was very strong overall however it could be argued that she used generalizations about Americans and even about Muslim women. Not all Americans are obsessed with physical appearance and outer beauty. Aside from her generalizations I thought she did a really good job overall and succeeded in connecting with her audience. 

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Mayson Haydar

Mayson Haydar "Veiled Intentions: Don't Judge a Muslim Girl by her Cover"

Haydar has a few main claims within her piece. The largest claim is that there are major misconceptions about freedom within the muslim religion. She explained how she was riding a bus in New York City when she heard an American make a remark about the way Haydar was dressed and proceeded to explain how she could never dress in such ways because she enjoyed her "freedom". Haydar explains how her clothing choice in fact allows for more freedom than an American in tight jeans, a face full of makeup and curled hair. Muslim women in her religion are allowed to enjoy the same things as anyone else however they do so with respect for themselves. She states how many women subjugate themselves through the way they dress while also centering their lives on being admired for their appearance which is a very meaningless thing to do. Just because muslim women do not flaunt their bodies does not mean they do not cherish it or believe it is unimportant. Veiling strays away from a lifestyle full of harassment and self-loathing yet rather allows for a comfortable life where you're body is able to be appropriately valued. As for strategies Haydar compares and contrasts the ways of life between the muslim community and the non-muslim community. She compares a typical New York women to a muslim women. She uses a lot personal anecdotes from her past and gives plenty of reasoning for why veiling does not necessarily mean no freedom. She includes a lot of personal examples which lead to a stronger connection with her audience which most likely is majority women. She also uses rebuttals to prove her point and make her arguments even more powerful. 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Kristof & Chrichton

Kristof "War & Wisdom"

Kristof's article was about how we should not go to war with Iraq because it will end up costing way too much money and will ultimately lead to many unnecessary deaths. I found there to be around four main claims in his piece. We should not invade Iraq because our money should be spent on more important things such as education, environmental issues, etc. The threat from nukes is way too serious for us to be invading, and therefore we should be finding alternatives to war. War is super pricey and will cost too much in money and lives that it is not worth it. And lastly in the beginning of his article he shares how many key military authorities are strong believers that war is not what we should be doing at the moment. Kristof uses Hitler as an analogy to prove how certain people are evil. He also uses a lot of historical examples and facts to make his writing more credible. For example in the first paragraph he talks about different generals and their opinions on the issue. And the last strategy he used was rhetorical questioning in order to get his audiences brains going. I thought his article was very strong. He supported all of his evidence and made good points. His use of strategies was very well organized and successful.

Michael Crichton, Excerpt from Intelligence Squared Debate

Crichton believes that humans are the reason for global warming. However although there is strong evidence that shows humans are the reason from greenhouse gases, it is possible that the few people who believe global warming is not caused from human emissions could potentially be right. His next claim states that people ultimately hypocrites because they talk about how humans are doing harm to the environment yet do nothing to help. He used his friends as an example by stating how they talk about how they want to help the universe and then go hop on their private jet to visit their second or third homes. There is no excuse as to why we should not stop decreasing our carbon and strive to increase hydrogen levels. I thought Chrichton's strategies were very strong as well. He was very opinionated and found a way through his writing to identify and connect with the reader. His language was informal at times which made it feel like he was conversing with you. Chricthton was also highly persuasive as well. He used a fare amount of rhetorical questions which made the reader start to think more. For example, "Is the globe warming? Yes. Is the greenhouse effect real? Yes. Do human beings in general effect the climate? Yes." Lastly I thought Chrichton had a very strong and powerful conclusion. He gave more simplistic examples about global warming that his audience could relate to instead of being very broad about global warming.