The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read Chapter 39 from We the People and Chapter 10 of Sandel's Justice.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the readings. I will collect these notes on Friday in class.
3) Find another credible source on the internet that connects to one of the readings above. You should try to find a source on your policy issue so that it can work for this blog post and contribute to your research.
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.
- Create a short synthesis paragraph on the one of the texts and your text.
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 12/20, by 12:00am.
5) Come to class on Friday ready to discuss the 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.
The text I found this week was, "For Newton, Condolences and Plea for Action" by Marie Griffith. This text deals with the potential religion has to encourage changes in gun laws so that another tragedy like the one in Newton, Connecticut doesn't occur again. This article is clearly connected to chapter 10 of Justice because Sandel argues that virtue should be integrated into government, but it should not become a force of civic destruction once it does. In younger generations, the idea that religion, which is where many people draw their virtue from, should be separate from state prevails. Individuals do not want politics to use virtue to impose one's ideas of the "good life" on anyone else. However, Sandel argues that if we merge virtue and state, mutual respect amongst citizens will strengthen instead of weaken. Griffith's article is a reiteration of Sandel's argument because she explains that religion has positive political effects, but she also acknowledges that religion in government has the potential to manipulate our political ideals.
ReplyDeleteThis text is credible because its author, Marie Griffith, is heavily educated in religious and political study. She is the director of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics, and she possesses a doctorate degree from Harvard University in religious study. Her role as the director of this organization means that she is very knowledgeable in this matter, but it also indicates that we should expect bias from her because her research revolves around religion and its role in politics. Her expertise in the matter of religion and its relationship to politics makes her a reliable source of religious and political information.
Griffith uses strong evidence to support her claim that religion has a place in politics because she provides examples of pro-gun law public officials that have called to rethink gun laws because of moral and religious convictions. Congressman Joe Scarborough and Senator Joe Manchin are speaking openly for the first time about strengthening gun laws, "despite the inevitable storms bound to come their way." This "storm" is pressure from other politicians and members of the NRA, which they are also a part of, to back down from gun law reforms. Griffith uses NRA members as virtuous supporters of anti-gun laws to give a greater sense of the strength virtue has in political manners. This supports her argument greater than writing about any other politicians because these particular politicians have a good reason to remain loyal to the NRA, political funding. Despite this, virtue had the power to convince these gun enthusiasts to sacrifice their rights for the good of our society. Griffith commends these individuals for their transition into the anti-gun debate because it provides a clear example of morality's role in positive political decisions.
Religion should be accepted in government because of its ability to resolve political issues. In chapter 10 of Justice, Sandel argues, "Rather than avoid the moral and religious convictions that our fellow citizens bring to public life, we should attend to them more directly." Griffith's inclusion of public officials and the role religion has had on their political thoughts is an indication that Sandel is correct in saying that the public should attend to moral convictions instead of avoid them. One could argue that morality tore these officials away from the bonds they possessed with other gun enthusiasts, but in severing these bonds one could also argue that these public officials strengthened their relationship with the general public. Since these individuals openly expressed their moral views in the face of great opposition they are breaking some of the barriers that separate religion and state. This links back to Sandel's idea that religion/morality will increase respect among parties and will result in legislation that will benefit the common good.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2123309-1,00.html
ReplyDeleteThe article “One for All and All for One” by, Joe Klein is about the inclusion of the Democratic Party. If this wants to be fully achieved then the Democratic Party must include the groups that are excluded and lack identity in politics. This is related to chapter 10 in Justice because working towards inclusion of all groups in society requires the government to aspire to neutrality. This practice of neutrality allows a move towards justice and the common good.
“One for All and All for One” is a credible text because it comes from TIME magazine which is a well known news source. Misleading or misinformation would lead to a decline of readers and deterioration of reputation. Moreover, the author Joe Klein is the leading political columnist for TIME. Klein has written several novels including Primary Colors, which was a New York Times bestseller. He has also won awards like the Peter Khiss Award and the National Headliner award. His career reflects successful accomplishments. It would not be worth it to void his success by making this article not credible.
Joe Klein provides strong evidence through organizations like the Democratic National Committee and expert testimony. Klein states, “The Democratic National Committee officially recognizes 14 caucuses or "communities," most having to do with race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity”. Caucuses show that some groups feel like they are being excluded from a voice in government and by voicing their opinion they can achieve change that can benefit all. Obama is also quoted as saying “The only way my life makes sense is if regardless of culture, race, religion, tribe, there is this commonality, these essential human truths and passions and hope and moral precepts that we can reach out beyond our differences. If that is not the case, then it is pretty hard for me to make sense of my life. So that is the core of who I am”. Obama here gives a sense of neutrality that is beneficial to not only one or a few groups, but to everyone.
Both “One for All and All for One” and chapter 10 in Justice propose distributive justice as connected to the common good. Some caucuses feel that income redistribution is something beneficial. This is clear when Klein writes, “The Democrats are, for once, at peace with themselves. The party's left would like to see more income redistribution at home and fewer drone strikes overseas, but they are a distinct minority” (“One for All and All for One”). The distinct minority could be a group that is still excluded and lacks a real presence in politics. This can produce inequality and lead to weaker unity within a community. In Justice, Sandel acknowledges the consequences of inequality. He states, “Focusing on the civic consequences of inequality, and ways of reversing them, might find political traction that arguments about income distribution as such do not” (pp.267-268). Civic consequences of inequality can be prevented with income distribution. In this case income redistribution is a type of justice because it benefits the common good. Otherwise, unity deteriorates among communities and divisions occur. This not only undermines the common good, but it also weakens the foundations of democracy.
The article that I found this week is called by Nicole Gelinas. In this article Gelinas discusses governor Cuomo decision to invest and push to get the new built. The Tappan Zee Bridge would connect the Westchester and Rockland counties and replace the old bridge.That connect to the larger idea that there needs to be greater investment in the renovation of infrastructure in New York.
ReplyDeleteThis connects to this week’s text of We the People chapter 39, because in the reading it talk about how ideas are what rule the world and not men. Because if the ideas are for good then the ideas would succesful as discussed in the reading. Further these ideas connect to “To Buy a New Bridge” because the idea to built a need bridge was a good idea thus it was successfully approved by both the members of the state legislators and those in the community where its building approved of this idea
This text is from a credible because it was posted by the New York Post, a well known new organization that would jeopardize its clients and credibility if publishes false information. The author of this text is also an editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal magazine. That's a national urban-policy magazine, that takes years of work, of experience with public policy since and of qualification to post on this magazine.
To analysis the the creation of the Tappan Zee Bridge Gelinas discusses both the positive and negative effects of the bridge. For example she uses strong statistical exemplification, she writes “keeping the old bridge ($1.3 billion for added maintenance and repair over the next decade) or a full rehab ($3.4 billion, and the bridge still wouldn’t meet modern standards)” This would be economically and structurally more efficient to create a new bridge, however it would hurt the riders that use the other bridges every day. The $3.4 billion dollars have to come from somewhere and this would be from “EZPass fare for a car could go from $4.75 now to $12.50 by 2017.” That show both sides of the bridge project because of how much it would cost to create and how it would affect the actual public. Another type of strong evidence that Gelinas uses is expert testimony when she quotes governor Cuomo “You have to generate positive energy to overcome . . . the negative energy.” Here governor Cuomo is being used as a reference to why it would better to have the new bridge even if it meant toll hikes, because the govenar dedicated his second term to push for the bridge.
In We the People the author wrote about how much good ideas are successful and that old ideas have be revised to succeed as well. The old ideas like self government which is a big one in American. Further the new Tappan Zee Bridge shows how good ideas progress and with the use of self government. For example “public face and holding public meetings in Rockland and Westchester — the counties” That is a way that the public was able to decide and make objections to the creation of the bridge. That is stated by We the People “the purpose of serving the public good.... participation of all citizens” Which is how good ideas function they involved the public for the good of the community that what the new Tappan Zee Bridge will due.
The first paragraph is missing a line I edited below.
DeleteThe article that I found this week is called “To Buy a New Bridge” by Nicole Gelinas. In this article Gelinas discusses governor Cuomo decision to invest and push to get the new built. The Tappan Zee Bridge would connect the Westchester and Rockland counties and replace the old bridge.That connect to the larger idea that there needs to be greater investment in the renovation of infrastructure in New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/nyregion/an-eviction-followed-by-a-parade-of-homeless-shelters.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe article “An Eviction, Followed by a Parade of Homeless Shelters” by John Otis is about a family who has been through the worst of the worst. Aquiya and her mother Renee Jackson, have had to go from shelter to shelter in hope to regain a stable apartment, but due to Renee’s unstable economic stance and past experiences, both her and Aquiya are stuck without a stable apartment they can call home.
The article I found this week connects to this week’s text from Chapter 39 because both incorporate the fundamental principles of unity and diversity. Unity and diversity may not always go in correlation with one another, but they are both fundamental in our society. Although individuals may be different, there is one force that pulls us together and that is the fact that despite we are different, we share common ideals which unite us in the end.
The evidence that I have that this text is credible is that being published in the New York Times, it is already known to be credible. The New York Times is a major news organization which publishes articles on a regular basis for a large audience. It is a major news source for professionals and if it were to publish lies or unreliable things, it will definitely lose both its credibility and prestige.
The author presents strong evidence in order to support his argument through the use of expert testimony. For example, he quotes Renee herself when she states, “I’m always used to helping people out...To go from helping my sister or my friends or whoever, to go to this, it’s hard.” The fact that John Otis quotes Renee really empowers his argument because through using her direct words he is able to show readers the reality and from another perspective besides his own.
Both “An Eviction, Followed by a Parade of Homeless Shelters” and Chapter 39 of We the People incorporate the fundamental principles our nation was founded upon. Although our country has been divided by racial and economic groups, it is our duty as citizens to reunite and help those in need. Even with a just a few steps, we can be on our way to upholding these values we know to be true.
The article “Should Religion Play a Role in Politics?” by Gary Gutting is one that focuses on the role religion plays in politics. This article includes different views Americans believe the stance of religion is in when speaking about politics. This article connects to this week’s reading of Sandel’s “Justice” Chapter 10: Justice and the Common because this article speaks about religion’s role in politics and if it is effective towards politics in any form. Sandel argues that national interest and any decision being made towards the common good shouldn’t be shaped by religious convictions. Some individuals believe that religious beliefs are being put into play for the common good. However, Sandel uses both John f. Kennedy’s example and Barack Obama’s example to show that they’re role in government and making decisions as President wasn’t based on religion. Gutting’s article is a response to Sandel’s argument because at the end of the article he states “Eschewing this sort of appeal to religious considerations would be a good start toward reducing the acrimony and frustration of our political debates” meaning that if people who stop considering their religion into politics it will put a decrease in frustrating political debates.
ReplyDeleteThe text I found is credible because it is an article found in the New York Times, a daily news source founded in 1851 and continuously publishes articles daily. The New York Times is a popular American newspaper website that receives more than 30 million unique visitors per month. This confirms that the NY Times is a relevant news source because it provides credible sources that provide accurate information. Therefore, the NY Times would not provide false information that will endanger their ratings of being the largest local metropolitan newspaper in the United States. This article is also seen to be credible because it is written by Gary Gutting a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and whose writing is a part of The Stone, writing of contemporary philosophers in issues both timely and timeless.
Gutting the author of this article uses strong evidence to support his argument by referencing The Family Leader, (a group that has called for presidential candidates to sign a pledge supporting “family values”) has a voter guide which states “a strong Christian leader “understands key elements of God’s law,” which means that, for example, the leader “upholds the Biblical principles of responsibility and accountability in civil life, thereby limiting the size and cost of civil government”. Gutting uses this example to show why religion shouldn’t play a role in politics. This shows that Christians think that they have the ultimate power to create a “civil government”. Additionally, Gutting cites an expert, John Rawls, (a philosopher who was considered a figure in moral philosophy) idea of “overlapping consensus” in order to prove his argument.
Both Sandel and Gutting may agree both upon the idea that religion isn’t associated with political decisions. Sandel argues that it is beneficial to separate from our religious convictions as citizens because this means that when “engaging in public discourse about justice and rights, we must abide by the limits of liberal public reason”. A way that Gutting states a solution to Sandel’s argument of separating religious convictions in order to benefit the common good is when he states what John Rawls calls “overlapping consensus” in which “different groups of citizens accepted the same conclusions from quite different arguments. So there is no objection in principle to religious arguments in political debates”. This wouldn’t cause frustration in political debates like present day. Instead it will decrease the frustration.
The source I found “Metropolitan Transportation Authority Governance Principles and By-Laws” is a piece that clearly describes the Metropolitan Transportation Authority governing guidelines. It includes guidelines for various aspects of the system such as what each officer of the authority is expected to do and who is he or she appointed by.
ReplyDeleteThis text connects to chapter 39 of We The People because it explains how liberty can be preserved through the frequent observance of principles. In this text the mission statement along with the guidelines put in place by the Governance Committee are included. These guidelines have been useful because the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has been around for more than 2 decades and as The Founders either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee explains nations, in this case a corporation, should recognize leading principles in order to last because by not recognizing them they are bound to fail.
This text is seen to be credible because it states it was approved by the Chairman and a large portion of the members of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Additionally it says it was created with laws of the State of New York taken into account. This contributes to the credibility of this piece because an individual who manages the corporation gave it validity and additionally it follows the policies of New York State. Additionally it is part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2010 Annual Report which is a reliable source since it evaluates the performance of a public benefit corporation.
The author does provide strong evidence because it includes a clear mission statement which relates directly to the guidelines included which are needed to carry out their mission of, “Preserving and enhancing the quality of life and economic health of the region we [they] serve through cost-efficient provision of safe, on-time, reliable and clean transportation services.” Furthermore it provides strong evidence of principles being in place because it states clearly depicts what a chairman is to do if he or she is to find him or her self in a situation where there is a tie among members in a board meeting, the individual is to cast an additional vote.
The “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” is a needed in order for a system to have duration. As stated in We The People Chapter 39, “... systems... ought to recognize the leading principles of them in the front page of every family book.” The Founders belief of the importance of principles being reviewed is evident with this and furthermore adds that many individuals should be aware of them. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority follows this belief through their annual reports which all include governance principles and by-laws as part of it, additionally many people have access to it because it is available on the internet which is an international computer network .
The article I found this week is called “Politifact’s Guide to Mitt Romney and Abortion.” This article describes Mitt Romney’s view on abortion, how it has changed over time, and why he believes strongly in his opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 10 of Justice, Sandel makes his audience think about if it is okay to mix in moral and religious values when establishing new legislation. Some argue that neutrality is the best way to go since moral and religious values are unique to each person. However, some issues simply cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the moral and religious aspect of things. One of these issues is abortion. The article that I found this week is about Mitt Romney’s opinion about how the government should regulate abortions. Romney being pro-life is an example of making political decisions with moral or religious values in mind because he believes that fetuses are alive at the moment of conception, thus, it wouldn’t be morally okay to take someone’s life.
This article is from Politifact, a project of the Tampa Bay Times that aims to let its readers find out the truth about politics. The fact that Politifact has won the Pulitzer Prize proves that this site’s information can be trusted because such an award would not be handed out to an organization that claims to tell the truth, but instead does not. Also, since the site deciphers whether or not the statements of political officials are true or not, they will surely make sure that what they put up on the site is correct information. Otherwise, not only would it ruin the reputation of Politifact, but also the reputation of political officials, which could potentially cause a major scandal.
The author uses testimony from Mitt Romney himself in order to provide strong evidence to conclude that Romney is contradicting his own past statements. The author states that in his 1994 campaign, Romney claimed to “believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, it should be sustained and supported.” However, in his 2011 he appears to change his mind when he said, “I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited…” This specific testimony helps the author further convey the message that it will be hard to trust a candidate who changes his mind. Including Romney’s very own words helps to make the argument even more valid since he is clearly stating the different opinions.
In chapter 10 of Justice, Sandel describes both sides to the abortion debate. Some say that the government should leave women with the responsibility to choose what to do with their bodies. Others claim that “if it’s true that the developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide” (251). Romney believes in Sandel’s definition of pro-life because when asked if he would support a constitutional law that would establish the definition of life as conception, his answer was “Absolutely.” That constitutional law that Romney said he would support is exactly what Sandel is talking about because it’s legislation that would be based on moral values. On the topic of abortion, Romney does not want decisions to be based on neutrality. Instead, he agrees with Sandel’s point that some issues can’t be solved purely using neutrality.
The text I found this week entitled, “Does a candidates’ faith matter? Answer hinges largely on race” by Dan Merica elaborates on a poll that had shown a significant division between race and religion when it comes to presidential affairs. Religion has, over time, become less common for many citizens in the U.S., which has in turn created a major difference between racial groups and religious groups when it comes to politics. This article relates to chapter 10 of Justice because of Sandel’s argument that religion does in fact play a major part politics and law in America. Through Merica’s explanation of the effect religion plays on presidential politics, it is clear to see how Sandel’s argument is emphasized as Merica includes statistics and cause-and-effect relationships that had occurred during Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s run for President.
ReplyDeleteThis article is credible because it comes from CNN, a highly respected news source that has earned its reputation by delivering news coverage for numerous viewers and readers. It is expected that CNN provides information that is accurate and genuine because of their prominent stance as a well known news corporation. Dan Merica is also credible as he is a graduate student from Bentley University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Global Studies. Merica plans to continue studying politics while at American University.
By stating various facts about religion’s effect on politics, Merica uses strong evidence to support his assertion that religion is a powerful aspect of our nation’s political system. Merica demonstrates how millennials have played a large role in the current religious division, stating, “44% [of millennials] said [religion] was important, while 53% said it wasn’t important”. Although it is just a 9% difference, it is that difference that contributes to decisions that involve religion in which specific groups choose specific candidates. Merica describes this after explaining how a candidate such as Romney, who displays his strong religious beliefs to the public would most likely end up winning “54% [of people’s votes, whom had] said [the ‘strong religious beliefs’] trait best described Romney, while 32% selected Obama”. This may have been one of the major reasons why Romney had been popular among a majority of his supporters. Race also plays a large part when it comes to a group choosing a candidate, especially since there is racial division. When it comes to black millennials, Merica states that “69% said ‘has strong religious beliefs’ [had] described Obama, while 22% selected Romney”, a major difference between both candidates in terms of race. Such situations prove Sandel’s statement, “...it was a mistake to insist that moral and religious convictions play no part in politics and law” since it shows how people are in fact creating an effect on their government with the decisions they make or the beliefs that they have in terms of religion. When “(66%) of...young millennials are registered to vote [and] ‘are absolutely certain they will vote in 2012’”, it is clear that the possibilities of major change in the U.S. are bound to happen.
There is a common misconception within the U.S. that religion should not interfere with politics, but in truth, it is with the involvement of religion that our current generation is able to establish solutions for different problems. By choosing a candidate based not only on political reasoning but also by what Sandel describes as ways to “address problems...[with] changes in hearts and a change in minds” (246), a form of change in which everyone is more mindful to what’s they care about, rather than just concentrating on what would benefit the government. Merica does an accurate job at demonstrating how multiple groups are able to reconstruct dilemmas and create benefits for the U.S. as a whole, emphasizing the obvious benefits that religious involvement brings into politics.
This week I found an article called, “Taxing Wealth for the Common Good” which talks about the Wealth for the Common Good (WFCG). The WFCG is a network of business leaders, high-income individuals and partners that work together to promote shared prosperity and fair taxation. Their desire is to create an economy which works for everyone and not just the rich. This relates to chapter 10 from Justice because Sandel believes that the large gap between the rich and poor undermines the solidarity that democratic citizenship requires. Therefore, the rich should be taxed because it creates more of a unity between the rich and poor since that tax money would go towards things like education and transportation which both classes use.
ReplyDeleteI found this article in the Yes! magazine which is a non-profit magazine that covers topics of social justice, environmental sustainability, alternative economics, and peace. This magazine won an Utne Reader Alternate Press Award which shows that the magazine is so reliable so as to receive an award for its great coverage. Also, since they received such an award, they would think twice about publishing any false information since that would discredit them and make many lose confidence in this magazine which would affect them financially and would ruin their reputation. Additionally, the author of the article, Chuck Collins, is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and coordinator of the Wealth for the Common Good network. Collins would ruin reputation as the coordinator of a large network as well as a scholar if he were to lie about anything he published. Publishing false information would destroy everything he’s worked for since no one would trust a network that would lie to them.
Chuck Collins uses expert testimony from a Wealth for the Common Good press conference. Collins quotes Arul Menezes, a principal architect at Microsoft and member of the initiative, to show that taxing the rich isn’t only about distributing income but it cultivates solidarity and creates a sense of community. Menezes states that he benefited from publicly funded education, government investments in the technology industry,along with the benefits he gained from “schools...and civic amenities that were built and paid for by previous generations…[that] had the collective will to invest in their future and the future of their children.” Collins uses this specific expert because Menezes shows an instance of where taxing the rich helps to create a more united community which is the goal of taxing the rich.
Networks like the WFCG work to solve the problem that Sandel states, “As inequality deepens, rich and poor live increasingly separate lives” (Sandel). Therefore, the focus of taxing the rich isn’t to “[redistribute] for the sake of broadening access to private consumption, [instead, it’s to] tax the affluent to rebuild public institutions and services so that rich and poor alike would want to take advantage of them” (Sandel). As mentioned earlier, Menezes is a wealthy man who benefited from publicly funded education instead of going to a private school. The key point here is that a major consequence of the large wealth gap is that it creates this separation between classes where there shouldn’t be one. “Institutions that once gathered people together and served as informal schools of civic virtue [became] few and far between” (Sandel). The main goal of WFCG targets the common good since as said by Eric Schoenberg, a member of the organization, “It’s only fair for those of us who have benefited the most from this system to contribute the most.” Both Sandel and Collins would agree that taxing the rich is the best way to decrease the large gap between the rich and poor while creating a sense of community and solidarity by rebuilding public institutions for instance.
Amy Davidson’s “The Abortion Debate: Biden’s Faith, Ryan’s Extremism” discusses the vice presidential candidates’ debate on how their religions have affected their personal views on abortion. This article and chapter 10 of Michael Sandel’s Justice are related because both texts express the role one’s faith plays on one’s own interpretations of justice in politics. Sandel discusses how morality and faith inevitably influences stances on social issues. Davidson expands on this as she provides abortion as a social issue both candidates are torn between due to their differences in religion, evidently showing how faith is a prominent factor in American politics.
ReplyDeleteThis source is credible because the New Yorker published it. The New Yorker is a weekly magazine, established in 1925, with a wide audience of readers outside of New York. This magazine is very well known in various areas of the U.S. and so; it would avoid publishing false information to avoid tarnishing its reputation and losing its readers. Additionally, the author, Amy Davidson is the senior editor of the New Yorker and has a focus on politics and national affairs. Not only does this show she has extensive knowledge on the matter, but her work has influenced the winnings of the magazine’s National Magazine of the Year Award and the George Polk Award, which shows she is acknowledged and admired nationally.
Davidson uses viewpoints from both political parties and direct quotations to strengthen her argument. Davidson quotes Paul Ryan and Joe Biden in her article to present both candidates’ distinct ideas on abortion. Ryan states, “Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course,” clearly presenting that Catholicism has made abortion unfavorable to Ryan. Davidson then quotes Biden who counters Ryan when he claims, “He’s [Ryan] argued that in the case of rape or incest…it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree...” By presenting both a Republican and Democratic perspective on abortion, Davidson not only ensures that her article is nonpartisan, but validates the argument that religion is evident in modern politics. Since both candidates provide statements that suggest a lean towards a specific religious belief, Davidson strengthens her claim as she presents clear personal biases in two very influential leaders in politics, the potential vice presidents.
Both Davidson’s article and Sandel’s Justice discuss how the U.S. has adopted policies of individualism in our politics as opposed to ideas concerning neutrality. As stated in Sandel’s chapter, “the case for permitting abortion is no more neutral than the case for banning it. Both positions presuppose some answer to the underlying moral and religious controversy” (252). Sandel makes it known that religion influences decisions of individuals as opposed to the policy of neutrality in politics John F. Kennedy once hoped to promote. Davidson reiterates this idea when she quotes Biden who states, “But I refuse to impose it [his religion]…I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that—women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.” Although Davidson’s use of quotation does support Sandel’s claim that Democrats remain neutral on issues concerning sexual behavior or reproductive decisions, the idea of religion still continues to loom over the matter. Religions continue to be controversial factors in politics as the U.S. has emphasized its use to decide political matters. Individuals are urged to view politics with their personal conceptions of the good life. This bias has not only resulted in constant confrontation between groups, but has been the cause of a stalemate of laws in states nationwide. As Americans continue to view political issues through a religious lens, we should ideally focus on restricting ourselves to arguments that all Americans can accept as to avoid imposing beliefs and loyalties on individuals and allowing the country to progress.
The text I found is an article published by Texas A&M University, which tries to explain Plato’s ideas. It delves into Forms, everything that is an object of knowledge, is shared by all particulars of it. Such as how while you may draw a square in a sheet of graphing paper then draw 3 square of approximately the same perimeter in such a way that it forms a bigger square. The squares cannot be perfectly accurate. Also what some may see as a green square other may see as a red square but they both agree that it is a square? Then how is it that no matter how ‘different’ the squares are, in size or color, they are still recognizable as a square? They share the Form of the Square. It also explains the difference between knowledge, truth, and opinion, belief.
ReplyDeletePlato believes that “If … an opinion or belief we have is based on these undoubtable principles of thought ... That foundation is what allows us to think of a belief as more than simply opinion; it is what allows us to identify the belief as justified and true, and that is what is meant by knowledge.” In the Chapter 10 reading of Justice, in the debate about Stem Cell research and abortion it argues that the people who are pro-choice should try to show why termination pregnancy is wrong. You cannot show it is wrong since “We cannot know something that is false because that which is false is not.”
The text is credible since it is written by a Philosophy professor at one of the top 20 colleges in the U.S. The author has also received awards due to his outstanding teachings.
The author’s evidence is strong since he uses tables and diagrams in order to facilitate understanding. In the table there are tabs in order to understand the difference between forms and opinions and the different types of forms. The author also makes references to some of Plato’s dialogue’s such as Mano’s.
While Plato believes in forms, the quintessence of objects of knowledge, there is a form which is called Form of Good. While Chapter 10 tries to give a definition to what is ‘common good’ and the ‘Good Life’ Plato differs from other philosophers in that he does not give a definition for Form of Good instead saying that it is elusive and the hardest to comprehend.
http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/plato.html
DeleteThe text that I found this week was a report called “Domestic Violence Counts 2011” from the National Network to End Domestic Violence. In this report, it is clear that domestic violence victims have been helped towards reconstructing their lives after abuse but a few changes are still needed so that victims’ life can be as stable as possible. This report is clearly connected to chapter 10 of Justice because Sandel addresses his readers that virtue is a factor that is essential in government as long as there is no distraction in the future. In addition, the weekly reading is connected to the text I found because in Justice, Sandel quotes Obama stating “You invest in America, and America invests in you” (264). Therefore, based on this report about Domestic Violence, social organizations help victims and the government will give them funds for housing and other uses to better improve the support given to victims.
ReplyDelete“Domestic Violence Counts 2011” is credible because it comes from the National Network to End Domestic Violence which is a non-profit organization that has been around since 1995. In addition, this organization serves as a national voice for domestic violence survivors and supporters of the issue. If this organization or the report were not valid, readers would not read the reports on how to become involved in the group and they would also not spend time on learning about people who have faced harsh/similar challenges as themselves. Furthermore, this source is also credible because the author uses techniques such as using testimonies from both victims and staff members and statistics to strengthen their argument about improving victims’ lives.
The author of the text I found uses strong evidence to demonstrate how abused victims have been helped yet not completely. The author writes “36,332 domestic violence victims found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing provided by local domestic violence programs.” Sandel’s reference fits with this quote because there is an exchange in social advocate programs. While victims share their experience in being battered by their partner, the program takes this into account and helps them find a place to stay so that they can be safe from their aggressor. Victims now gain trust in organizations and as soon as government sees this more funds can be given to these groups to provide victims with all the service they need. The author clarifies this when he states that 43 percent staff is needed, 18 percent of victims need beds to sleep in, and 14 percent of the staff needs to be bilingual. This is essential for means of communication and making sure the voice every victim is heard. Therefore, the author gives the reader a sense of compassion and in this case, citizens can become civically engaged not only to become aware of the violence issue but to strengthen America as a democracy.
Both Sandel and the author of this report can agree that it is moral for citizens to become involved in organizations that benefit the greater the general public while also being known by the government. Sandel argues that the responsibility of humans is to act in order to define the liberty of all. This means that people need to embrace the idea of unity because not only can they shape the character of another human being, but also help create their own character into someone better than before. However, unlike Sandel the author of “Domestic Violence Counts 2011” would disagree with Sandel about government intervention. The author writes “Our collaboration with local law enforcement is invaluable.” The audience learns that the government must remain neutral because America then emphasizes justice and the promotion of the common good. Thus, organizations and its victims must work together to map out the positives and negative things when relying on government and only then can they make the choice to determine the future of America and the generations that follow.
The Sandy Hook shooting was a tragedy that should have never happened, most people would agree with that however a more controversial question is should assault rifles be banned from the United States. In the article I found called “Bloomberg, Incensed by Shooting, Vows Stiffer Fight to Rework Gun Laws” by Michael M. Grynbaum it shows Mayor Bloomberg's position on the issue and it’s pretty clear that he is for gun laws and wants to see them banned but just how much of this is charged by emotion or his morals and should these morals be brought into his actions? This article connects to chapter 10 of Justice by Michael Sandel because it is argued that if we merge morals and state, mutual respect amongst citizens will strengthen instead of weaken however it should not become a force of civic destruction once it does. Seeing how much money Mayor Bloomberg is pouring into assuring that gun control laws get passed its obvious that he is allowing his morals to become a source of civic destruction.
ReplyDeleteThis article is credible because Michael M. Grynbaum has been following the Mayor’s actions since it is his last year in office so he would know more about Bloomberg’s position on this issue better than anyone else. On top of that the publisher of the article is the New York Times which is a highly prestigious organization which has earned the respect of many people and led them to believe that the New York Times is very credible. If they were not correct then they would lose credibility and then lose customers so they would likely not post an article thats not true and fact checked.
Grynbaum’s article is a strong of evidence in this because he shows the position that Bloomberg holds on the topic at hand as well as shows his emotion from the topic clearly showing his morals spilling into politics. When he says “Ask Mr. Bloomberg about firearms, and his usual stoic facade falls away, revealing anger and exasperation born of years of witnessing the blood and tears that can flow from gun violence.” it shows the strong amount of emotion and morals that Bloomberg has against guns and the experience that he has had in that area and shows why he has a bias against guns. Later in the article Grynbaum talks about how his morals will play into his involvement in government he says “Mr. Bloomberg plans to spend millions of dollars over the next two years to aid political candidates willing to oppose the gun lobby” this would put into office people who are against gun laws and will almost always go for the law or the approach that would put gun control higher than ever and severely limit every american’s right to bare arms. So instead of integrating morals and emotion into politics in a way that respects that each other it is turning into a force of civic destruction.
Bringing in emotion and morals into government can and would help on some issues however using them excessively would cause an influx of laws created with emotional or moral bias. In chapter 10 of Justice it says “Rawls accepted the possibility of thickly constituted, morally encumbered selves... In debating justice and rights, we should set aside our personal moral and religious convictions” Bloomberg did not set aside his personal moral convictions but instead tried to integrate it with the government. His moral convictions lead his to try and change the minds of congress members like it said in the articles “Mr. Bloomberg, meanwhile, took to the phones, calling members of Congress to urge the passage of an assault-weapons ban.” So this issue is purely based on the convictions of the politician Bloomberg and it will eventually spin out of control. We need to learn to use it correctly as Sandel says “Rather than avoid the moral and religious convictions that our fellow citizens bring to public life, we should attend to them more directly.” if we learn to balance it correctly then morality will increase and later end with a result of legislation that will greatly benefit everyone.
My article talks about how Verizon is advocating and increasing awareness for domestic violence. By joining and providing to groups like the National Domestic Violence Hotline, Verizon helps spread word of issues concerning domestic violence.
ReplyDeleteMy article connects to this week’s reading of Chapter 39 of We the People specifically focusing on the unity versus diversity section of the reading. This section focuses on language and how essential it is for not only the survival of democracy but as well as people. Both my article and the reading connect in the effectiveness of language use to better not only the nation but your live as well.
My article comes from the New York Times which is a trusted news source that delivers news that can only be altered by members of the staff. They are also known to keep the truth and public informed pretty well, thus establishing credibility. My article also mentions a well known phone company; Verizon. Verizon has been selling phones as one of the first largest companies established for communication.
In order to instill the magnitude and seriousness of increasing awareness of domestic violence, the author of my article uses statistical exemplification in order to show what they have done to promote their cause. It states that “Since the launch of HopeLine in 2001, more than $14.2 million in cash grants have been awarded to domestic violence agencies and organizations throughout the country and nearly 123,000 phones have been distributed with more than 406 million minutes of free wireless service to be used by victims of domestic violence.” The author also states the names of large companies and organizations in order to show that there are people out there who do care and want to help out any way possible.
Going back to the idea of language from Chapter 39 of We the People, one of the reasons companies like Verizon are supporting groups like the Hotline in order to promote awareness is so that people in general communicate no matter what the issue. One of the biggest issues with domestic violence is that victims are afraid of speaking because they are fear they won’t receive help, thus showing why a phone company like Verizon ironically wants to contribute to the reports and communications of victims.
My article this week is from the New York Times, “Gunman Took Big Supply of Ammunition to School After Killing Mother at Home” by N.R Kleinfield. This article is about the Sandy Hook Massacre in Newtown, Connecticut and about how the perpetrator, Adam Lanza used various weapons to make this horrible massacre occur. In addition, this article elaborates on nationwide condolences, including President Obama’s and even foreigners
ReplyDeleteThis text relates to Chapter 39 from We The People because both texts are about violent crime. Adam Lanza’s killing of 28 people in Newtown, Connecticut destroys the relationship between balance and liberty. Guns that are legally acquired in the United States must only be used for protection, not for the unruly killing of innocents. In Chapter 39 of We The People, it is stated that violent crime is widespread in the nation’s inner cities but “few areas of our society feel safe” (3). Although a crime may not occur consecutively in a city, there is still every reason to feel unsafe. Most perpetrators do not announce their plots, therefore some people remain on the prowl-- in case of an unexpected crime. With order, one may use their weapons for safety reasons, such as self-defense. With liberty, one may do what he/she desires, hopefully not going against the law or Constitution.
This text is credible because it is from the New York Times. The New York Times is a well-renowned news organization which has been providing readers with facts, stories and mostly non-partisan articles. This text is also credible because it is written by N.R Kleinfield. Kleinfeld is a city reporter who wrote the A-1, first Column “A Creeping Horror: Buildings Burn and Fall as Onlookers Search for Elusive Safety” on September 12, 2001. In addition, this article has no bias, both perspectives are equally balanced.
N.R. Kleinfeld does indeed present strong evidence to support his argument. Kleinfeld uses factual information from the Sandy Hook massacre to show the reader the intensity of the crime with the amount of weapons used. Kleinfeld also cites police officer reports to make his argument even more accurate and detailed. Kleinfeld states, “...the specifics of the arsenal that [Lanza] brought to the school...gave a sense of the vast quantity of ammunition that he had. Lt. J. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, said most of the shots were fired from a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic carbine, a military-style assault weapon... two semiautomatic pistols, a 10-millimeter Glock and a 9-millimeter Sig Sauer.” (1).
There are many depictions on the issue of crime. Although victims of crimes are 100 percent against them, perpetrators and justice-oriented citizens may be in favor of them. The second amendment of the U.S Constitution rules the right to bear arms- allowing Americans to own arms for individual use and defense. In contrast, Adam Lanza used his arms for a horrible killing spree of 28 people- violating the law. In Chapter 39 of We the People it is stated that there have been proposals for searches for weapons without warrants which some viewed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In comparison, Kleinfeld states, “The guns were legally acquired and registered by Ms. Lanza, who had sometimes taken her son to shooting ranges... “ (1)
http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
ReplyDelete1-2) “Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Rights” talks about the differences between majority rule and minority rights. It goes into specific about the tyranny that comes with majority rule using african americans as a prime example. Finally it goes on to talk about what has been done to protect such rights both nationally and internationally. In our assigned reading of chapter 39 from We the People, we learn about the importance of the fundamental principles establish by the founding fathers of America. In chapter 39 there is a scenario talking about Majority Rule vs. Minority Right. Both texts are related because they both touch upon the same topics which are majority tyranny and how the minority is directly impacted.
3) This source is credible for several reasons. The author of this source is Eric Chenoweth, graduate of Columbia University as well as co-director and founder of the Institute of Democracy in Eastern Europe that has helped nations in the area combat communism since 1989. Eric Chenoweth is a person who has published a wide variety of opinion pages and journals, only adding on to his credibility. This text is also credible because the author, Eric Chenoweth, uses a wide variety of different sources to root his argument and inform the reader. He draws evidence from the U.S.A. Constitution, credible websites, museums, books, and much more.
4) Chenoweth talks about majority rule and minority rights equally, but as you read you get the feeling that he is advocating more for the protection and preservation of minority rights. Some examples he uses are “it is the African American experience that most warns of the danger of such majority tyranny,” and “The worst examples are those of totalitarian regimes that carried out genocide to eradicate unwanted groups in society.” Here Chenoweth uses genocides (like the holocaust) and the African American experience to testify against the cruelty of majority rule. We can definitely say that these two example are very strong as they portray the complete power the majority had over the minorities. In the first example we learn about slavery of the minority and the exploitation from the majority while in the second example we see the majority exterminating the minority because of their differences.
The article, “Latinos and Other Minorities Boost President Obama’s Margin of Victory In 2012 Election” by Juan Gonzalez discusses how Obama’s victory for democracy was due to the millions of voters he had. These voters were specifically Hispanics and other minorities.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to this week’s topic because in We the People: Chapter 39, there’s a critical thinking exercise that focuses on majority rule versus minority rights. In this section it explains how achieving an accurate balance between majority rule and minority rights is an issue today. According to this chapter, in a democratic society numbers rather than social position determine the meaning of majority. The term minority is the losing side of a vote. However, it’s usually use in order to differ from others in characteristics such as ethnicity, language, religion and the lower income class. This relates to my source because it explains how Hispanics are mainly considered minorities in the population but their votes had significant impact on this presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
This source is credible because it’s posted by the New York Daily News. The New York Daily News it’s a prestigious news organization in the United States. If they post false information, then their putting their reputation at risk and might lose the millions of followers it has. This source consist of several statistics, cites other sources and websites. Furthermore, the author Juan Gonzalez is an award winning columnist of the New York Daily News, author of several books that have been turned into full length- documentary and he frequently co-hosts the radio and television program, Democracy Now!
Juan Gonzalez presents strong statistical exemplification to support his claim. Gonzalez stated, “... The total number of Latino votes may have increased by as much as 2 million over the 9.7 million voted in 2008” and “For years ago, Obama received 67% of all Latinos votes...[this year] his share climbed to 71%”. This evidence presents that more Hispanics are using their rights and their outweighing these elections. In addition, Juan Gonzalez uses bias information because he quotes Angelo Falcon, the president of the National Latino Institute for Latino Policy saying, “All that talk that there would be an enthusiasm gap this year, that Latinos and other minorities wouldn’t come out the way they did in 2008, turned out to be all wrong”. This evidence supports his claim because America is becoming more and more diverse. These minorities are the ones who make the biggest difference in government decisions because mostly all are democratic and America consist of more minorities than whites. The republican party can now realize that Latinos are salient to America and the government.
We the People: Chapter 39 and Juan Gonzalez news source are both similar. In We the People, it stated, “The term majority is derived from the weightier part”. Gonzalez stated, “...[This year Obama’s share] climbed to 71% of Latinos votes”. This clearly exemplifies that Hispanics were the majority of the voters that supported Obama/ the democratic party. We the People stated, “Majority rule is an essential concept of democratic government because there needs to be a way to settle disputes and decide issues”. Juan Gonzalez will approve of this because Immigration is a huge domestic issue and he stated, “Nothing has driven Latinos away from the Republican Party like immigration policy. Obama’s support of comprehensive immigration reform, and his decision to grant temporary legal status to young people brought here illegally by their parents, cemented his huge support”. Here, we see that the majority of these Latino voters went with Obama because they believe he had the best plan on immigration.