The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignment. This week's reading is from Michael Sandel's Justice. It is Chapter 1, and you can find it here. If you want to print it out, you can after school.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the reading. This is the part we will start in class on Tuesday. I will collect these notes on Friday in class.
3) Find another credible source on the internet that connects to the reading above or to the class topic from this week ("What makes a society just?"). You can use any of the sites I have listed on the right, or more general news sites like nytimes.com. We will practice this in class on Wednesday.
4) After you read the source that you find, answer the following questions as a blog entry below:
- Write a summary sentence for the text you found.
- How does the text connect to that week’s topic or to the other text you have read?
- What evidence do you have that the text you found is credible?
- Does the author present strong evidence to support his/her argument? Provide an example.
- What would the author of your text say about the class text from that week?
- What would the author of the class text say about your text from that week?
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 9/13, by 5:00pm.
5) Come to class on Friday ready to discuss the Sandel reading and the text you found!
If you need support or have questions, my office hours are Monday and Wednesday from 3:15-4:15 in Room 229.
Test Comment. Not signed in.
ReplyDeleteTest Comment 2
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1)the article in the ny times the goverments control over the income and how its causing political problems for obama.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/us-incomes-dropped-last-year-census-bureau-says.html?_r=2&hp
ReplyDelete2)this text is related to this weeks topic because it invovles social contrast.
This is credible and relavent.
this is credible because it is in a major new paper tittle.tis is relevant because it show how the goverments power over the people and this shows social contrast.
norma ortiz
ReplyDelete1.The article i found was in the NY times which talked about how florida was hit with the price gouging in 2004 when a hurricane hit people had to pay $10 for a bag of ice.this article relates to what we learned in class because we was talking about how stores rise high prices on good when its in need and will pay whats necessary like it happened in this article.this website is credible because its a very know website and has a reputation of good feedback so wont be made up. joseph does his argue his argument with evidence because he gets peoples point of views and add it into the text, stated by Mr. Boyce "I'd rather not have it at that price." i think he will agree with text we doing in class because it relates to his topic on price gouging putting high prices on supplies that more higher than its suppose to be and unreasonable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/national/18scams.html?pagewanted=all
This article i found was in the NY Daily News, which talked about how the governor of New York , wants to less the amount of welfare in the future for the New Yorkers on welfare so they can become more dependent of themselves, but that the people should really speak up if they don't feel like he should make that decision.This topic relates to the discussion about gov.t and price gouging , because he is trying to less the amount of welfare,with the possibility of people being in a bad state after, but since we are a democratic state we can always speak on it. This website is credible because its a big visited website, and big company/business as well. and its get lots of reviews as well. the author does prove his point when he quotes "The governor promises that his plan "will transform a system that has trapped far too many New Yorkers, giving them new hope and opportunity, restoring personal dignity and creating a brighter future for families by freeing them of the web of dependency.". i think the author will agree with the text we are doing in class because not only does it relate to price gouging but it relates to democracy as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/gov-plan-society-welfare-article-1.731767
1. The article i read was in the New York times it discussed how Germany was gouging pay phones charging soldiers 51 $ for a two minute phone call.
ReplyDeleteThis relates to Justice by Michael Sandel because in the book Hurricane Charley left people in complete despair which left markets to gouging many items and hotel stays. A normal hotel night which would be 60 $ a night would rise up to 160$ a day. In the article soldiers discuss their frustration with the abuse they face by German services. They have tried to reach out for help but are never responded to. Germany also has taken advantage of gouging because their pay phones do not accept united states calling cards.This article also relates to this weeks topic because we are learning how in natural disasters many markets have taken advantage of people in despair in order to make more money.The text i found is credible because it has quotations and dates it is also from a well known organization and website ( The New York Times ). The author does provide strong evidence to support his argument by using the actual gauging victims he states “If they told you it cost $41 for a minute, you wouldn’t make the call,” Mr. Mattes said. I believe the author would agree with our class discussions because many people take advantage of those who want to protect or check in on their families when they are in despair. James Dao would also agree because in his article he used strong enough evidence in which shows he also agress with the unfairness of gauging. I also believe James Dao would agree with my text because he seems to strongly disagree with price gauging and especially when the needy are taken advantage of. He also expressed his side by using the soldiers in the interview to say their side of the story and how Germany was being very unreasonable for their price gauging since soldiers work many miles away from their loved ones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/us-troops-complain-of-pay-phone-gouging-in-germany.html?_r=2
braley rosario
ReplyDelete1.The article I found was in the NY times, which talked about how the Muslims burn the homes of the Egyptian Christians. This doesn't not make a society just. This connects to this weeks topic because it involves with welfare and peoples right for freedom. As shown in Justice, the Purple heart its only reserved for the soldiers who are hurt badly and not for the society. This website is credible because its being excerpted from the New York Times, and it was by DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK. One example he uses and that it's credible is "Egypt opens with scenes of Egyptian security forces standing idle as Muslims pillage and burn the homes of Egyptian Christians". The author would say " why only have medicine for the soldiers, and not for the entire society"? But as for the class he would have said " Lets all come as one and lets elect a leader who we can be able to trust and won't let us down".
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/origins-of-provocative-video-shrouded.html?_r=1&hp
The article i pick was from the New York Times where there a international crisis in Librya and Egypt , but it doesnt look like President Obama will cancel his next campaign. Mr Obamabwas going to see if the protest situation was going to continue to get worst but the situation has calm so he staying with hos normal plan right now. This situation was similars to 4 years ago when John Mccain postponed his campaign to deal with a international problem but Obama decided to stay and continue his campaign. Obama is accsuing Mitt Rodney of trying to make middle class people pay way more money while millionaire have an avantage , ofcourse Rodney denies this accused. 2) this article connects to the lesson from this week because like we discuss in class presidents or rulers would do anything to get the people's vote to keep them in power this is shown by president Obama by not taking that trip to Libya instead hes stayingvto do his campaign , Obama ofcourse been president for 4 years and wants another 4 extra year in power. It all depends on the people if those extra 4 years will happen for him. 3) this article is credible because it has a link it from a huge business and theres a publisher to this article. The whole story Stays in one topic instead of talking about some other thing. 4) the author of this article uses example of the campaign of 2008 with Obama vs Mccain and showing how Obama did the samething like the situation from now. 5) the author of the article i pick from the New York Times would tell the Justice author that if theres a international crisis or a situation and your the president you should defineltly be there to give support instead of thinking about there campaign ,maybe if voters see the reasons why he cancel his campaign then he still can get his vote he wants because hes showing he protecting and carring for his country. 6) the author of justice would tell the author of the New York Times that they should also talk about how unfair to increase prices of products ineed for the persons benefits and taking advantage of the situation. This can reall caused chaos more then it already is and the president should make a law that you cant robb other peoples money when bad situations happens such as a hurricane. Also if the person was to violate the law he or she should easily be sent to jail.
ReplyDeletePolice, Drugs and the Social Contract
ReplyDeletePublished: August 27, 1988 is a article that i got out of New York Times website. And i found this article very interesting because the issue of drug dealing and the amount of crime that is happening in the street because i`m living through i walk through those streets that all this is happening so i`m intrigue to find out more about the topic. i found this article to be very relevant to the type of discution that we are having in class. for example we talk about how social contract is the balance of power between the people and the goverment , the people being the police in this case and the goverment being the judicial courts .the police feels like the risk and actions they take in order to stop the drug dealing is kind of pointless because the courts just relase them withing a few days. Also i this article is critical because if you look where i got the article from is from the New York Times and all the information is clear and valid.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/27/opinion/police-drugs-and-the-social-contract.html
alvin valdez
The text that I found is called “Gas Price Gouging Hits Hurricane States" by Charles Herman with addition to Zunaria Zaki and Scott Mayerowitz in Sept. 12 2008. This text is about gas price gouging in states like Kentucky, Virginia and South Carolina, due to Hurricane Ike down in Texas. Price gouging was in effect in those countries because due to the hurricane the oil industry was put on hold and the amounts of oil that were given were very poor amounts. Even though some states like North Carolina and South Carolina passed laws that were Anti-gouging things did not changed dramatically and prices on gas went up to $6 dollars a gallon. It made the public turn to chaotic people and do crazy things like calling attorney generals every 8 seconds and even calling 911 to inform police prices on gas went up. This text connect to the book Justice “what’s the right thing to do?” by Michael J. Sandel that we are reading this week. It connects to price gouging, because they both talk about people abusing other people’s rights and gaining power by forcing them to pay high amounts of money in times of emergency’s. This text is credible because it is from the ABC news website it has a date and names of the people who wrote the article It has other links leading into more interesting text on this topic and it is a very trustable website. The author represents strong arguments throughout the whole text. He uses quotes from people that deal with the oil companies, and state governments that have to deal with the angry people. He also uses his opinion as a form of argument for his piece as well. For example he writes “That means less oil, and gasoline will be available to gas stations, which in turn means reduced supplies. That can lead to higher prices, especially if drivers, worried about possible shortages, start filling up.” That is a perfect summarization of the whole text in the author’s own words. In “Gas Price Gouging Hits Hurricane States" Charles Herman would agree with the ideas of price gouging in the book Justice “what’s the right thing to do?” by Michael J. Sandel. Charles Herman would agree because he and Michael J. Sandel share the same beliefs and thoughts on price gouging. Also Charles Herman’s was talking about the same thing Michael J. was in his text the only thing different was the plots settings and root of the text. Michael J. Sandel would also agree with Charles Herman because in the book the people that were experiencing price gouging only talked about making laws and ways in which price gouging was able to be controlled. As for Charles Herman he talked about states having laws already against price gouging. This would make both of these authors happy with each other because they both tried to show the negative sides of price gouging.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5791480&page=2#.UFE6dtmdi1s
-jess
The article I read in the nytimes is called “ Libya attack brings challenge for US” published on September 12, 2012. The attack on Libya was made by the islamist militants with their antiaircraft weapons. This attack killed the American ambassador and three members of his staff. American and European officials thinks that this attack happened related to the anniversary of the 9/11 attack. Benghazi has recently witnessed a pattern of attacks on international missions including a bomb planted near the United States consulate in June. President Obama responds to this was that he promised to bring “justice”. This connects to the activity we did in class. Just like us the community ( from the activity ) wanted to hear certain things from our “leaders” is the same thing the United States wants. By Obama promising that he’ll bring justice is a catch to people’s attention. Both the people from the community ( from the activity in class ) and the United States want protection given by their leader. This article is found credible because there’s numerous documents found on the same topic. Obama provided an example of his protection which was that he sent Marines to help the securities at the American Embassy there.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/politics/behind-romneys-decision-to-criticize-obama-on-libya.html?ref=politics
Officials warn of price gouging is about the negligent, scandalous companies, price gouging the Mississippians when a near by tropical storm Isaac is on its way.
ReplyDeleteThe text, Officials warn of price gouging by Brian Eason connects to the other text Justice by Michael, J. Sandel because they both relate to the law breaking action of price gouging in a helpless situation.
The evidence I have from the text I found that is credible is The clarion ledger. The Clarion ledger is a news paper located in Jackson, Mississippi. The article is written by Brian Eason a news reporter.
The author does present strong evidence to support his argument. An example is, companies such as hotels increase their profit margin and could own up to five hundred dollars in just the day of need of safe stay. That money could cost them their jobs by being convicted to a felony and face one to five years in prison. Governor Phil Bryan and Attorney General Jim Hood agree on the fact that price gouging needs to stop. The people are in need not to be dealing with nonsense on being over charged.
The author Brian Eason from the text I chose, Officials warn of price gouging would say that the class text Justice by Michael J. Sandel from the week explains the same concept Michael J. Handel's made because he is trying to spread out the word and to prove the point on price gouging and the outrageous things that companies have decided to make during a time of need.
The author Michael J. Sandel from the class text, Justice would say about the text Officials warn of price gouging by Brian Eason is that Brian Eason makes a valid point as he does as well because the companies need to stick to the law and not just taking advantage of the people just for their profits and greediness. Justice needs to be served.
For more information that you are interested on you can find this article at http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120828/NEWS0110/208280333/Officials-warn-price-gouging
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article i found in the new york times, whiched talked about price gouging And how prices might go up for some medicane. I choosed this article because this week we talked about how price gouging is happening more often when people are in need of resources. For example " paitients with entirely curable disease have been force to take medican that may not be as effective Adding anxiety to an already terrible ordeal". So the people have to pay more for medicane which can have affect you later on. Some evidence i found from the text that is credible is they said that obama is going to issue a excutive order. And also talk about justice.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/health/policy/medicine-shortages-adressed-in-obama-excutive-order.html?_r=2
The text which i found that relates to this weeks lesson is school look to weed nonresidents. This text connects to this weeks topics because in this article residents of conneticut are complaining about people bringing their children to their school from New York. In this weeks topic the people of Florida don't really care wheter or not your from the area, but they prefer to sell supplies to residents. This article is credible because there are many hyperlinks that take you to other websites concerning this problem. Also this article is written by the NY times. Jenny Anderson states in her article that, "Tom Bobkowski,director of school safety services for Greenwich, said he conducted 61 investigations last year - all the results of complaints by people suspecting particular students did not belong." What MS. Anderson is trying to prove with this quote is that people dont like outsiders attending their schools. This supports MS. Anderson arguement in which parents should only make their children attend schools nerby their home. What Ms. Anderson would say about the text from this week is that although many people are price gouging the people of their society they have the right to do so. The author of the class text would say that Ms. Anderson's article is unfair and that students should attend which ever school they are eligiable for.
ReplyDeleteIn the social Contract article from the New York times explains how the wealthy get richer thanks to the social contract which provides a decent society in which they can prosper from. Overall, the wealthy pay less taxes than the middle class workers. This article also shows how these policies have led to an advantage for the wealthy, as opposed to the middle class. This text connects to the book “ Justice” because it explains how the social contract is just an agreement between the government and the people. The people give power to the government and the government protects the peoples rights. If the people do not engage in the social contract then they basically are ignored by the government. This text is credible because the journalist Paul Krugman joined the New York Times in 1999 as a columnist. He also is a professor of Economics and International affair at Princeton University. the author of the text uses strong evidence from the congressional Budget Office. I think Sandel would agree with Krugman because the wealthy people are getting richer by the day thanks to the middle class not only the United States but worldwide are paying higher taxes. I also believe that Krugman would agree with Sandel because Sandel explains that everybody should have an economic prosperity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/krugman-the-social-contract.html
Cristal batista
This is a article talking about how president Obama has gotten the economy worst. Obama is threating the peoples power because it makes it harder for people to get jobs and buy what they want and need for their family. This also makes prices rise because of the limited amount of supplies that can be made because of the limited raw materials. This article is credible because it’s from a known and big company and is powered by reliable recourses. The author uses evidence to support his statement. According to this article there is ''23 million Americans struggling for work'' and according to CNN Money "middle class [is] falling further behind". If Robert Farley from the factcheck wire read this weeks articles he would talk about social contact and how obama is failing to protect the peoples rights. If the author from the articles from class was to read his article he would agree on obamas failure campain.
ReplyDeletehttp://factcheck.org/2012/09/bill-clinton-give-me-a-break/
Rayme Polanco 9/12/12
I read "Prosecutors: Soldier lied about Purple Hearts, military combat" by CNN wire staff published Wednesday June 6, 2012. This article was about how one man named William John Roy lied about receiving two purple hearts and about being injured while fighting in Vietnam and Afghanistan to receive money for himself and for his daughters education. This text connects to the reading by Michael J. Sandel Justice chapter 1 "Doing the right thing" because in page 10 till page 12 Michael Sandel is talking about Purple Hearts and what they are and what type of soldiers are eligible for it and should or shouldn't receive one. In the text "Prosecutors: Soldier lied about Purple Hearts, military combat" it is also talks about Purple Hearts and it is showing how one person can abuse a honorable award and how they have violated laws due to his accusations. The evidence i have that this text is credible is that this article is a part of a very important and famous news site, it has other related topics and it also has hyber links to other things that can help you understand the text better, also if CNN started to state things that weren't true then it could cause their site to fail and people wouldn't believe them anymore, they would have alot to lose if they stated things that weren't true. The authors of CNN do present strong evidence to prove their point. To prove that William John Roy was lying and that he didn't fight in either Vietnam or Afghanistan they provided the evidence from an investigation that said that William John Roy was in Germany in a noncombat role during the time he said he was at war, also William John Roy sent a letter to the army requesting a purple heart because he was injured during an attack in Jalalabad which the investigation also proved he was never involved with. I think the author from this text would find the text from this week interesting and very relevant to his/her article. I think the author from the text from my class would say that William John Roy is the one of the reasons why the Purple Hearts award is being limited to certain soldiers based on the conditions of their medical problem, he would be extremely furious to read this article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/us/california-soldier-charged/index.html?iref=allsearch
Garmandy Candelario
ReplyDelete“Purple Heart Is Ruled Out for Traumatic Stress” is about an argument based on whether not awarding the Purple Heart medals to Soldiers wit PTSD.
This text connect with what we have so far discussed in class in the way that, we have been discussing the book “Justice” and in the book it talks about people in society that are taken advantage of. The soldiers with PTSD are not being given a medal because it is believed that they do not deserve it .
The article “Purple Heart Is Ruled Out for Traumatic Stress” not only because it is a New York Times article but also because as I look through a variety of articles I see that the information in other article and it is accurate. Also the company New York Times is a major name in news and they would not risk being accurate.
The Arthur Lizette Alvarez and Erik Eckholme use strong evidence to support the article , When stated “Kevin Owsley ,47, who served in Ohio National Guard in 2004” they are using live examples of people to support their discussion.
Both Lizette Alvarez and Erik Eckholme would argue that people in society now in days are being taken advantage and that are not appreciated because both the article and the book show example of things that are not fair towards the people.
Michael J. sandal would most likely say that the government’s power is sometimes unfair due to the fact the that laws were never made laws to prevent these types of situation ( unfair society).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08purple.html?pagewanted=all
The purple heart was a medal that is given to those soldiers that were wounded during battle which brought controversy among post traumatic stress disorder and the government about that soldiers with post traumatic soldiers should get the purple heart medal which allows soldiers to get help from clinics.
ReplyDeleteThis text relates to other text that i have read because it is about justice and the relationship between soldiers and the government which has to do with social contract and how the soldiers want something for the government after their service in the military and coming home with problems.
I found this text credible because it was writing in a book and also it has its own website that talks about the purple heart which helps only wounded soldiers this is also credible because a argument was created on what type. Also the site is from The New York Times which is a reliable source where you could get information about the topic you are searching for. The author does show strong evidence about the purple heart metal and talking about who only will get it which are the physical wounded.
Lizette Alvarez and Erik Echkholm would disagree with Michael Sandel and say that the purple heart medal should only be given to wounded soldiers because they experience something during battles that would affect their life forever and also that soldiers with traumatic stress shouldn't.
Michael Sandel Would disagree also because he beliefs on that people that serve on the army and that suffer from traumatic stress should get the purple heart medal because they are going through something in there life that will haunt them which it could cause depression that could lead to suicide.
Mitt Romney Panic Syndrome, By John Dickerson, is about how Mitt Romney is not really taking things seriously and that he is not giving voters a reason to vote for him.
ReplyDeleteThis text is relevant to the text justice because is also talking about the president and talking about thing should be. They both have different fact of disagreement on each text like the text of Michael Sandals “people are charging 10 $ for a bag of ice and that not right for the problem that people have” and John Dickerson is disagreeing on the situation that Mitt Romney is having showing the people he want to be a president for the united states.
This text is credible because is from the page CBS.com and it was post by john Dickerson, Sept 12, 10:05pm. the author john D. show strong evidence by saying Mitt Romney is enjoying at least the fourth public loss of confidence by conservative elites since winning the nomination, and Mitt Romney is not giving voters a reason to vote for him.
John Dickerson will most likely agree to Michael Sandal text and say that what people have done charging people extra wasn’t fair to all of them because in the situation they in people shouldn’t be charging so much for a bag of ice or a motel.
Michael sandal will also most likely agree on the situation on Mitt Romney, because if you really not showing responsibility and is not giving voters a reason to vote for him, he really shouldn’t be a president then of the United States.
1. The Purple Heart is given to those who are wound or killed by enemy action, but to veterans who suffer from PTSD(Post - Traumatic Stress Disorder) are not qualify for the purple heart. Pentagon disagreement about if veterans with PTSD should get the purple heart because it wasn't a wound in war or/and they believe that some veterans can fake PTSD. After many criticism the Defense Department and the Veterans Administration to give the purple heart to those with traumatic brain injuries, serious cases with PTSD may receive substantial disability benefits.
ReplyDelete2. The text Purple Heart Is Ruled Out for Traumatic Stress connects to justice. Veterans were fight for welfare , to get medical treatment for the disorder they got in war.
3. This text is credible because got it form The New York Time. A big company like The New York Time won't write a text with false evidence because they would lose a lot of followers who like to read their articles.
4. The authors, Lizette Alvarez and Erik Eckholm use names of doctors who have tested veterans with PTSD. “You relive it every night and every day,” he said. “You dream about it. You can see it, taste it, see people getting killed constantly over and over.” this quote was by Kevin Owsley who served in the Ohio National Guard in 2004 and is being treated for PTSD and traumatic brain injury.
5. The author Lizette Alvarez would agree with the Justice because he also agrees that veterans with PTSD should get the purple. Even though the veterans with PTSD didn't get a physical scar they got a mentally scar which affect their life.
6.Michael J. Sandel would agree with Lizette Alvarez because they both believe that PTSD veterans should get the purple heart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08purple.html?pagewanted=all
Pedro Guzman
The text that I read was an editorial from The New York Times, PTSD and the Purple Heart. This article was about the argument if or if not soldiers with PTSD should receive a Purple Heart for their work in the war. This article gives the basic definition of what a soldier who earns the Purple Heart criteria must be. The criterions needed for a soldier to earn a Purple Heart are that they must be physically injured by action of the enemy. This article asks if the fact that soldiers with PTSD are not receiving a Purple Heart unfair to them. These soldiers work just as hard to defend our nation as the injured soldiers did, so is it fair that we go by the “ official” definition of who deserves a Purple Heart?
ReplyDeleteIn the book, Justice: What’s the right thing to do? By Michael j. Sandel, It discusses the issue of Purple Hearts and their criterion on how these medals are being distributed; debating who should qualify for the Purple Heart. Its says that “PTSD is difficult to diagnose objectively” thus making it harder to really be secure that the soldiers are not faking the disease. It also discusses the morality of this issue and asks if it is wrong to disqualify someone who has been through the same experience without being injured.
The of the author of the editorial, PTSD and the Purple Heart, in The New York Times, does give sufficient evidence. They give you evidence on who believes in the stigma that PTSD soldiers are not worthy of a Purple Heart and who believes they are. They have no actual names of people but are a credible source, The New York Times is a widely known newspaper, to lie in their newspaper would that they are putting their credibility at risk, which they would not want to do leading them to failure.
The author of this text would say that the piece about who deserves the Purple Heart in Justice by Michael J. Sandel asks the right questions of the essential qualifications of a Purple Heart recipient.
The statement that I found is from The New York Times and it’s about the leader of North Korea not accepting the humanitarian aid from South Korea. The North Korean leader is not providing a proper welfare for its people by not accepting the South Korean’s humanitarian aid. This source is not only credible not only because it has a well known name but also it has the South Korean Ministry of Unification speaking on the matter. The author looks for people and news stories from both North and South Korea to support his statements. Both Choe Sang-Hun ,from The New York Times, and Michael J. Sandel, from the class text, would agree that not accepting the humanitarian aid from by the South Koreans to the North Korean was a bad move. Also, Michael J. Sandel will agree that the leader of North Korea is not supporting the welfare of his people. Michael J. Sandel said “, markets respect individual freedom; rather than impose a certain value on goods and services,…” By the Leader of N.K not accepting the humanitarian aid he is not giving his people a better market in witch they have a more opportunities to different chooses even if its only on food and not prices.
ReplyDeleteThe text i found talks about the purple heart and how people with PTSD should get a purple heart. One man named Ron Morton returned from the Vietnam warin 1976. He was suffering from PTSD like many others that went to the war. He and many others believe that the purple heart should be awarded to the soldiers should also be awarded because they also went to war and suffered. He became the the director of recovery and resiliency for Tennessee's Medicaid program and tries to help people with PTSD. Many say that the purple heart should only be for soldiers who had physical injuries and others believe that soldiers with PTSD should also get the purple heart. The pentagon decided not to give the purple heart to these soldiers.
ReplyDeleteThe text connects to this weeks text because we learned about the purple heart. We read "What wounds deserve the purple heart?" which spoke about how soldiers with PTSD were fighting for their right to get the purple heart. It spoke about how the purple heart was a honor of sacrifice and how these people with this illness also sacrificed a lot in the war.
This text is credible because it comes from an important news source.It has a date, author, and other credible links.
The author does present strong evidence to support the argument. the article states that soldiers with PTSD want to be treated like soldiers who have been shot in the leg or arm. Even though they dont have a physical wounds they have also suffered through war. They have wounds on the inside. The article also states that these are wounded people who should be acknowledged for their efforts.They also mention that they dont have support like the others to get medically treated." Military Needs to Change Culture So PTSD Isn't A Scarlet Letter".
The author of my text would agree with the class text. Both texts emphasize the idea that soldiers with PTSD should get a purple heart. It is not fair to them that just because the other soldiers are physically hurt they deserve more than the others who als suffered through war. It is worse to get depression and try killing yourself than loosing an arm and still be living well.Soldiers with PTSD always have the war in their mind and there is nothing they can do about it.
The author of the class text would agree with the article i chose. Even though he does not fully say he agrees with the purple heart being awarded to soldiers with PTSD we have evidence to prove he does. For example he states "But unlike bullets and bombs,such as explosions are not a deliberate enemy tactic intended to injure or kill;they are a damaging side effect of battlefield action". He also states "Those who insist that only bleeding wounds should count believe that post-traumatic stress reflects a weekness of character unworthy of honor. Both authors support the idea of the purple heart being awarded to soldiers with PTSD.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/ptsd-purple-hearts/story?id=16670395
The article i have chosen is about gas price gouging. The article i chose was http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/business/23gas.html?_r=1. I chosed this text because i noticed that in the article it talked about how the law of gas price gouging. This article is connected to this weeks topic because it also has to do with social contract. If the people are not happy with those laws they will not give the government power. This text i found is credible because the resources are primary and is being quoted by people that are stuggling with price gouging. I think that the author of this article agrees with price gouging because he said "there was probably not gouging because of regional or local trends that justified the higher prices". I think that the author doesnt seem to see anything happening.
ReplyDeleteHector Reyes
ReplyDeleteThe text that i found on CNN was about price gouging and how the senate is now going against drug distributors in “the grey market” also known as the second hand market for price gouging also known as “supply and demand “according to Jeff Jacoby.This text relate to what we have learned about this week because price gouging which means they are pro market and how people have the freedom to either buy or sell the supply but some have been punished because of this.This text is credible because it’s from CNN this means that if CNN was to be telling a lie it would then be losing lots credit for being one of the best new sources. It’s also known as a place where you are able to go and look up some news. The author talks about how Fluorouracil, a cancer drug that was initially $7 per vial, was sold to five different distributors, until the hospital ended up paying $600 for the vial.This shows extreme price gouging. The author would say that price gouging is bad and it’s only a way to take money away from people when they are in a down point of their life. The author of the class text would say that the text from CNN is correct because he also shows examples of when people are down just like in Hurricane Charley when people were almost charged triple for some things that they needed to survive.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/25/senate-attacks-drug-distributors-for-price-gouging/
4)the author shows in the text by saying that the people are furious about the income reduction which has a direct influence on the presidents election cause it will seem that the president ordered the goverment to reduce the income.
ReplyDelete5)the author would say that the goverment has to much power on deciding who desevres the purple heart even if they have injurys emotionally or physically.
6)bouerdon would say that the goverment does have to much control over the peoples income and the people would be angery if the goverment , ment to protect them causes problems for them,he would argee that the goverments control would cause the presidents election to spiral out of control due to the blame , obama would be in a tight situation.
The article I have chosen talks about the Purple Heart medal and how a Retired Army Major, who was once denied this prestigious award, was now given a Purple Heart, although she only suffered from a concussion. This article connects with the text we read in class about Purple Hearts since it address's the fact that although it's a physical and mental injury, she was given an award for her "non-real" injury. This source is indeed credible because it was found on the NPR (National Public Radio) Website, which is a big radio station name and has references and other links that can show other more people who got the award based on different reasons. It is relevant because it supports, although somewhat weak, Sandel and Tyler E. Bourdeu's proposition that the Pentagon was clearly wrong in their decision in only giving the Purple Heart award to Physically affected soilders. An example where this source is proven to be true is when the army, as proved in this quote from the source, "Lt. Col. Ralph Perkins, chief of the Army Awards and Decorations Branch, says that since the Army put out the new guidelines last year, they've awarded 976 Purple Hearts to soldiers and veterans like Dyarman who suffered mild traumatic brain injuries." If Michelle Dyarman was able to speak to Sandel about the Purple Heart award and who is it given too, then it would a conversation of progress. Sandel would ask Dyarman what was her injury and find out that it was a traumatic injury. Dyarman would find out that Sandel and Bourdeu have been fighting for people like her who have been mentally injured in the Army to get the Purple Heart award. The link is below .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2012/09/03/159983380/once-denied-a-purple-heart-a-soldier-gets-her-medal
The article I read was cleverly named “Taxes show one way to save fuel.” This article basically stating that taxes on gas is a good thing. In this case, at least. But why is it a good thing? President Obama proudly announced the energy-efficient car standards that he negotiated with car companies. “It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle class families and it will help create an economy built to last,” He proudly said in an official statement. This tax was to enforce the halt to global warming. “The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed these standards. They claimed to help reduce our energy use by 12 billion barrels of oil and cut down carbon emissions. This in the long run will help with problems such as pollution and acid rain. This piece of text connects to the Michale Sandels because, although Sandels talks against price gouging, he also talks about the government protecting us. This tax on gas, although it seems unfair and awful for car owners, is great for our future generations and for our Earth. Which means the government is protecting us. Or succeeding at their end of the social contract. This source is credible because it came from The New York Times. The New York Times is a big news company that always includes quotes,and links to other pages (hyperlinks). Also, since this is a big company, lying to the everyday readers will hurt its reputation. The author of this article, Eduardo Porter, proves his argument by saying “Consider how a gas tax would work. Because it would make gas more expensive at the pump, we would drive less. When time came to replace the old family S.U.V., we would be more likely to consider a more fuel-efficient option. As more Americans sought gas-sipping hybrids, carmakers would develop more efficient vehicles.” This quote basically ensures us, the readers that gas prices rising, is actually a good thing in this case. The author of this article would most likely agree with Michale Sandels that price gouging during a period of unfortunate events is unfair, but would claim that taxing to further help us is fair and needed in a situation such as global warming.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010, Jeff Jacoby continues to write about price gouging in Boston, Massachusetts. In Boston, a massive pipe break left dozens of towns in Boston without water for a weekend. Jacoby is no stranger to price gouging. On August 22, 2004, Jacoby wrote an article about the price gouging in Florida right after Hurricane Charley. In Boston, Jacoby writes about Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and her actions after the pipe break. Coakley made sure that vendors did not increase the price of bottled water and so did Governor Deval Patrick. Jacoby writes “Rising prices help keep limited quantities from vanishing today, while increasing the odds of fresh supplies arriving tomorrow”. Jacoby continues his article with a very valid example on how price gouging affects vendors. Price gouging has been shown to happen at almost every natural disaster is to happen. Businesses and vendors take a huge advantage of this situation to of course, make business and gain much more profit from everyday consumers. Jeff Jacoby’s article on price gouging in Boston, Massachusetts is credible because he has written articles in Boston for the Boston Globe and has also been mentioned in Michael J. Sandels novel Justice. Jacoby continues to make his point about price gouging and writes his opinion about it, “But its better by far to let prices rise and fall freely. That isn’t ‘gouging’ but plain good sense – and the best method yet devised for allocating goods and services among free men and women. In Justice by Michael J. Sandel begins his book with the massive price gouging in Florida after Hurricane Charley. Sandel mentions Jacoby in his novel and quoted parts of his article from the Boston Globe. Sandel writes “But public anger is no justification for interfering with the free market”. Sandel also writes “In medieval times, philosophers and theologians believed that the exchange of goods should be governed by a ‘just price’”. Sandel finishes that paragraph with his opinion, “There is no such thing as a ‘just price’”. This makes me believe that Jacoby and Sandel both agree on the terms of price gouging and recommend that the society should take advantage of the prices because of the financial benefit of supply and demand.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jeffjacoby.com/7248/whats-wrong-with-price-gouging
The article is talking about how prices of gas are going up. More specifically the gas price is going up because some gas station owners take advantage of the situation of hurricanes. Hurricane Isaac is a hurricane that just recently passed by, because of this Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette issued a warning that the price of gasoline could actually rise. This shows the corrupt capitalist society that people believe in. And since the American government still has a belief in Laissez Faire, it has no means of intervention into the economy.
ReplyDeleteThe article connects to chapter of the novel Justice because both the sources connect how corrupt the state law is by letting owners take advantage of an outage, and rather than help them, take advantage of the consumer’s pocket to take their money. This to me shows how people’s rights are violated as the industries show how the state laws are being violated because of gas owners don’t follow state laws and break them.
The source is credible because CBS is a large news industry which is separated into different States. This article seems to be formally written by a professional journalist that has knowledge and had on field experience by actually stating the price increase going up.
According to the author, the argument is valid because he states how prices are going up by 20 cents per gallon, changing the price from $3.89 to $4.09. This shows how the gas station owners over abuse the gas and sell it to their advantage. Another piece of evidence this journalist used was the discussion of the act that was violated, this journalist states, “the Consumer Protection Act prohibits retailers from charging a price that is grossly in excess of the price at which similar property or services are sold.” This interpreted means that the national government prohibits the sale of products that are sold at an equal or lesser price than being stated.
The writer of the article would agree with the arguments that Michael Sandel stated, both have the disagreements that instead of charging more for gas prices when the state or nation needs of resources, they should be generous and sell the resources at a modest price. This could potentially lead to both agreeing that instead of having a corrupt capitalist society, the government and the citizens should work together to bond citizens and make it into a sustainable society.
The article discussion would make Michael Sandel extremely aware that the corrupt society would be in need to change as many take advantage of neighbors rather than helping them.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/08/28/state-ag-circumstances-not-a-free-pass-for-gas-price-gouging/
Elmis Rodriguez,
ReplyDelete1. This nytimes article talks about how the price of gasoline has risen to record highs and the nytimes reporter EDMUND L.ANDREWS looks for a person to blame or a Villain in all this Price gouging.
2.This relates to what we have been talking about in class,Price gouging.the author states that since gasoline is such a necessity that having the price of it reach so high it is considered price gouging.
3.This site is both Relevant and Credible.
It is Credible because it is from nytimes, a big and important credible news source for years. It also sites to other to other people's pages.
4. The strong evidence saying there is a villain to price gouging is that some of these price gouging could be due to lack of competition because of companies mergers.
5. the author of my text would agree with Michael J. Sandel because they both agree that taking advantage of someone when they are down( in this recession) is wrong and not the virtuous thing to do.
6.Sandel would agree with the author of my text as they both want to fund out who is responsible for price gouging, and punish them accordingly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/business/yourmoney/20view.html?_r=1
1.When the purple heart merit was being handed to combat soligers that were killed in action or wounded.It was a high owner to receive this award.Less then 2,000 men and woman have receive this award.Over the years many began to wonder if you can give the award to soligers that haven't actually been wounded physically but now with a mental illness called Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).This mental illness is an anxiety disorder that have some symptoms like being jittery or always on the lookout for danger.A Big debate between this issue.If and should soligers with PTSD should receive this award?According to executive of The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Michael Fitzpatrick,He disagree with the pentagon decision on the purple heart award should only be given to those who have been wounded or kill in action.This led to Fitzpatrick saying about his view on the pentagon's decision "Troops with invisible wounds are heroes. It's time to honor them. It will also strike a tremendous blow against the stigma that often discourages individuals from seeking help when they need it."*Fitzpatrick is obviously angry with the Pentagon's decision.
ReplyDelete2.This article is connected to what we have been talking to in class about Tyler E.Bourdeu's view on the Pentagon made a wrong decision.
3.The article that I read this is from USA Today a well know News program.
4.The reporter has a bias opinion on the debate.She is leaning more towards the PTSD diagnose war heroes and not the pentagons decision.She uses quotes from a man that has respect with is status of being the Executive director of NAMI.
5 & 6.If Michael Fitzpatrick was to meet Sandel about who get the award,Fitzpatrick would strongly go with the war heros with PTSD.But Sandel could use the criteria of who gets the award, according to that specifically says "the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record."Even though Sandel is Pro Purple Heart for PSTD Veterans he understands why the won't get it.Maybe they can agree that the pentagon is wrong for their decision.
*Quote was taken from Patricia Kime Interview with Fitzpatrick.Links down below
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-06-29/military-purple-heart/55923610/1
In the text, "Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Now In Heads of State's Partisan High Court" by Dan Froomkin, it talks about how this new voter identification law in which Republicans took control of, could help suppress the votes of minorities, students, and other groups likely to vote Democratic. This text relates to this week's topic of the social contract, in which mentions that if people do not tend to engage or if groups of people don't vote they will be ignored by the government. In which can be related to this article, because of this new law that was created in which is that individuals need an ID in order to vote it's basically disenfranchising them, since mainly of those that don't drive, including elderly, or out of state college students can't vote. Additionally, the reason why the population of people that don't vote tends to increase is because they aren't all able to fulfill these requirements. If these individuals are less likely to vote, the more they are likely to not get attention from the governmnent. This article is a credible source because I found it on the Huffington Post in which have related articles about politics, and news on what goes on in other states based on this year's election. Dan Froomkin does present strong evidence in order to support his argument. For example, he quoted that " The Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader provided a clear view of the motivation behind the voter ID laws when he recently declared that the voter ID law is going to allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania". Furthermore, this is also a relevant source because the author of the text could relate this to the author of the class text because overall it relates to the disenfranchisement within these group of people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/13/pennsylvania-voter-id_ n_1881438.html
ReplyDeleteThe story I found is called "Why Gas Prices Are Out Of Any President's Control " written by Richard H Thaler. This text explained how the gas prices have increased right after ex president Bush took office. This text connects to what we have read this week because it goes into details how many in the government like the some presidents take advantage of the people the author also give a strong evidence to support his idea. This is shown when the author writes " By June 2008, that price had risen to $4.05. Still think presidents and oil-friendly policies can determine oil prices? It’s true that by the end of the Bush presidency, prices had fallen back to $1.69 ". The information this text give's us is found credible because it is written by a man that works for The New York Times a big company with a lot of viewers that wouldn't sacrifice their reputation to lie to the public giving out false information, if false information given it put their business in jeopardy.If Richard H Thaler were to have an opinion about the text we have read in our class he would agree with Michael Sandel about how the government wants to be rewarded for the good things and not take blame for the wrong things that shape America.
ReplyDeleteThis text talks about price gouging and how some gas prices are going up way too high and how there needs to be a stop to it.This text connects to this weeks topic because the people on the market, owners and higher of higher class have been trying to take advantage and put gas prices up exceptionally high. They especially try to take advantage when people need gas the most like for example during a hurricane. People are trying to evacuate as soon as possible. For example after hurricane Katrina gas prices jumped up to 50 cents more in some cities. This also shows just how things around society work, the poor are always taken advantage of by the rich. This source is because it is from the new york times and that is a really known source. Also because while I was reading I also remembered seeing this on the news so because of that i know that the information that was on the article was not false. Yes i believe the author does present strong evidence to support their facts because they gave an example on hurricane Katrina and how after it gas prices increased by 50 cents and also after the hurricane Rita the gas prices increased by another 35 cents per gallon. I think that both the authors from our class reading and from this article would agree with each other because they believe in what's right to the people and how the more higher class people are always finding ways to make the poor individuals life even worse.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/business/23gas.html?_r=1
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe text that I read was an editorial from The New York Times, "PTSD and the Purple Heart. " This article is about the argument if or if not soldiers with PTSD should receive a Purple Heart for their work in the war. This article gives the basic definition of what a soldier who earns the Purple Heart, criteria must be. The criterion's needed for a soldier to earn a Purple Heart are that they must be physically injured by action of the enemy. This article asks if the fact that soldiers with PTSD are not receiving a Purple Heart unfair to them. These soldiers work just as hard to defend our nation as the injured soldiers did, so is it fair that we go by the “ official” definition of who deserves a Purple Heart?
ReplyDeleteIn the book, Justice: What’s the right thing to do? By Michael j. Sandel, It discusses the issue of Purple Hearts and their criterion on how these medals are being distributed; debating who should qualify for the Purple Heart. Its says that “PTSD is difficult to diagnose objectively” thus making it harder to really be secure that the soldiers are not faking the disorder. It also discusses the morality of this issue and asks if it is wrong to disqualify someone who has been through the same experience without being physically injured.
The Editorial journalists, PTSD and the Purple Heart, in The New York Times, do give sufficient evidence. They give you evidence on who believes in the stigma that PTSD soldiers are not worthy of a Purple Heart and who believes they are. They have no actual names of people but are a credible source, The New York Times is a widely known newspaper, to lie in their newspaper would mean that they are putting their credibility at risk, which they would not want to do leading them to failure. This Editorial was compose by 16 journalist from the editorial board of the New York Times, who range in different experiences. The board includes the letter to the editors and OP - ED sections which is actually very helpful regarding to this particular article because this piece has very much to do about morality and the right and wrongs of this practice so have having many opinions to hear could maybe get a bigger representation of how people in America think their military should work.
The author of this text would say that the piece about who deserves the Purple Heart in Justice by Michael J. Sandel asks the right questions of the essential qualifications of a Purple Heart recipient. The definition is clear, a soldier can only receive a purple heart id the are physically injured not mentally. The morality of this practice might not be the most noble and admirable thing to do but it does to it true definition. It does make sense that people might not be so open to giving a purple heart to the mentally ill because to know if someone is saying the truth about something that you cant see and can sometimes be hard to evaluate and give them this prestigious award is very difficult. Some people might even lie about having PTSD just because they want to be recognized if giving a purple heart to someone who claims to have PTSD is allowed.
The Purple Heart was a medal that is given to those soldiers that were wounded or killed during battle which brought controversy among soldiers that have post traumatic stress disorder and if they should be awarded the medal of The Purple Heart.
ReplyDeleteThis text relates to other text that I have read because it is about justice and the relationship between soldiers and the government which has to do with social contract and how the soldiers want something for the government after their service in the military and coming home with problems.
The article that I found and read is from The New York Times a highly recognized news site which has been around since 1851 and has been a trusted news site throughout the years. Also is credible because the Purple Heart is a medal earned by getting wounded or killing to those to served in the military.
Lizette Alvarez and Erik Echkholm would disagree with Michael Sandel and say that the Purple Heart medal should also be given to soldiers that suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Even though PTDS in not a physical thing in a mental disorder that scars soldiers for their rest of their life with memories of others dying sound of bullets and nightmares. This eventually leads to some soldiers committing suicide. So the soldiers should earn a Purple heart medal because even though PTSD in not physical it eventually does become physical.
Michael Sandel would disagree and say that only soldiers that got injured or killed during battle should earn the Purple Heart medal. He would argue that PTSD in treatable while death or losing a leg is not something you could replace and you can’t bring back someone from the dead. Michael Sandel would agree with the decision of the government and say that soldiers should only get the medal due to physical injuries not mental.
Elmis RodrigueZ
ReplyDeleteThe article I read is called “Oil Price ‘Gouging’: A Phantom Menace?” by Edmund L. Andrews. In it, he discusses how gasoline prices have risen to record highs and who to blame for this sudden increase. Because gasoline is an inelastic good , (meaning that if prices increase demand stays the same )oil companies see this as an opportunity to raise prices to achieve maximum profit.
This article is relevant to class discussions as both discuss price gouging in times of need and the evilness that comes out of those who instead help those in need, abuse them because of the necessity of a certain product. This article is credible because it from the nytimes, an american newspaper founded in 1851 and is america’s most popular news site(Wikipedia). As such a highly known news source, they would not submit false or inaccurate information as their reputation is on the line
. The author, Edmund L. Andrews uses specific evidence to argue that gasoline companies are abusing americans by price gouging gasoline. “Democratic lawmakers announced bills to punish “price gouging” and the record profits that oil companies earned this year.” This is Andrews displaying that the ‘phantom menace’ behind the price gouging is the oil companies themselves and that lawmakers are aware of the situation . “One freshman senator — Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania — has introduced bills to tax the “excess profits” of oil companies when oil sells for more than $50 a barrel” This is Andrews showing showing that democrats are working on solutions to this problem.
Andrews would comment on the classes discussions by agreeing that there is a civic duty and a responsibility that these oil companies are not adhering to and should stop their current greedy behavior of price gouging. The author of the class discussions would comment on the article by discussing that the oil companies are failing at their civic responsibility of helping one another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/business/yourmoney/20view.html?_r=1
Many things make up a society in where it would become a stable world for its people to live in without poverty. In this article from the New York Times, states how Bangladesh's government cabinet approved changes to labor laws. Since the government has passed down this law, officials state that this "will expand benefits for garment workers and make it easier to form trade unions" which means that workers will be able to establish trade unions to trade with out countries. Also since Labor Laws were passed, the government says that they "promised to push for higher pay in an export clothing industry with the lowest wages in the world" which means that they will try to make as much money they can for the company by paying less. The government believes that this will make their government and more stronger and richer. These labor laws will affect the workers as they will be making less money than ever, especially that 80% of their workers are women while there is 5,000 factories employing 4.5 million workers. Although the government will be in a mix of both losing and gaining money since they are making a lot of money of their products and less money to their workers, it will not help out the workers since it's a poor society of Bangladesh since workers are getting paid even less for their work at garment factories. Although these labor laws is hurting the society, this is what creates one, an unsustainable type of society in which struggling workers and people will be in even more poverty.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/world/asia/bangladeshs-cabinet-approves-changes-to-labor-laws.html?ref=world&_r=0
Elmis RodrigueZ
ReplyDeleteThe article I read is called “Oil Price ‘Gouging’: A Phantom Menace?” by Edmund L. Andrews. In it, he discusses how gasoline prices have risen to record highs and who to blame for this sudden increase. Because gasoline is an inelastic good , (meaning that if prices increase demand stays the same )oil companies see this as an opportunity to raise prices to achieve maximum profit.
This article is relevant to class discussions as both discuss price gouging in times of need and the evilness that comes out of those who instead help those in need, abuse them because of the necessity of a certain product. This article is credible because it from the nytimes, an american newspaper founded in 1851 and is america’s most popular news site(Wikipedia). As such a highly known news source, they would not submit false or inaccurate information as their reputation is on the line
. The author, Edmund L. Andrews uses specific evidence to argue that gasoline companies are abusing americans by price gouging gasoline. “Democratic lawmakers announced bills to punish “price gouging” and the record profits that oil companies earned this year.” This is Andrews displaying that the ‘phantom menace’ behind the price gouging is the oil companies themselves and that lawmakers are aware of the situation . “One freshman senator — Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania — has introduced bills to tax the “excess profits” of oil companies when oil sells for more than $50 a barrel” This is Andrews showing showing that democrats are working on solutions to this problem.
Andrews would comment on the classes discussions by agreeing that there is a civic duty and a responsibility that these oil companies are not adhering to and should stop their current greedy behavior of price gouging. The author of the class discussions would comment on the article by discussing that the oil companies are failing at their civic responsibility of helping one another. These two passages would support the argument that abuse others in time of need or as Sandel phrases it as people “trying to capitalize on other people’s hardship and misery”. In summer of 2004, Hurricane Charley swept across Florida and businesses were gouging prices. At a gas station, two dollar ice bags became ten dollar ice bags, $40 dollar a night became $160 a night for motel due to the hurricane. The text proves this argument by showing the gas companies are exploiting america while we are in a recession. Both texts supports the argument that people are always “trying to capitalize on other people’s hardship and misery.
The article is found is called “THE GOV'S PLAN & SOCIETY'S WELFARE”. This article talks about the governor of New York, wants to less the amount of Welfare in the future for the New Yorkers on Welfare so they can become more dependent of themselves,However if the people who are on Welfare disagree they should really speak up against this new reform plan. This article connects to this week’s topic about Government and price gouging because even though the government is controlling the price of a specific item, the government wants to reform the amount of income from welfare. Limiting these Government programs can leave people in bad state. However as a democratic state we are able to speak against this reform law.
ReplyDeleteThis article is credible because it came from the Daily News. The Daily News was founded in 1919 and has currently won 10 Pulitzer Prizes. The author, E.R. Shipp is a columnist and journalist for the Daily News. She has won a Pulitzer Prize for her column on race and other social issues.
The author agrees with the government is doing when he says “The governor promises that his plan "will transform a system that has trapped far too many New Yorkers, giving them new hope and opportunity, restoring personal dignity and creating a brighter future for families by freeing them of the web of dependency." This reform plan can maybe a positive step for New Yorkers who are on Welfare because it can be a step that leads them to being independent. However it can also lack to New Yorkers who lack in education and can really result to anything else but Government programs. This can easily backfire and leave them in a worse or if not already poverty state.