Read through the letters to the editor from the New York Times from the past few days. Pick one that interests you and read it carefully. Then, find the original article that prompted this letter and read it, too.
Write a substantial paragraph and summarize the original article and the letter responding to it. What is the article’s main argument? (Or, if it is a news article, what are the main issues that it reports on?) What does the letter say in response to this article?
Once you summarize the article and the letter, explain the rhetorical situation for the letter writer. What prompted the letter writer to respond to the original piece, and how does he or she frame the letter as a response to it? What audience(s) does the letter writer address (implicitly or explicitly)? What constraints (ideas, beliefs, values) does the writer face in making his or her argument?
Please post your response as a comment to this post. Aim for 250-350 words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I chose two letters written in response to Paul Krugman's article, "What Didn't Happen," which argued that President Obama's key political dilemma is not that he pursued an overly ambitious agenda, but that his judgments and policy decisions were flawed. Krugman makes the case that the stimulus plan should have been much greater than it was, regulation of the banks was not tough enough, and that Democrats should not back down from healthcare reform. He does not fault the Obama administration for being spread too thin, but that it has not been ambitious enough, and - according to him - the new administration has also failed in putting more of our economic woes on the previous administration (Really? Because I've heard "the last 8 years" echoing in many of the president's very eloquent economic talks).
ReplyDeleteThe first letter submitted merely reaffirms Krugman's argument. , addressing what he assumes - or assumes to be - a friendly audience. The writer points to poor decisions on key advisers, who convinced him to be modest and compromising in his policies, as much of the cause for a "washed out" stimulus package and a deteriorating healthcare bill.
The second writer brings more to the table as far as deliberative discussion, and it is evident that he hopes to be addressing an adverse audience to whom he hopes to bring a revelation and a new outlook of the president's policies. He is prompted by Krugman's comparison to Reagan - his argument that President Obama needs to spend more time brushing the blame off to the previous administration. This writer uses Krugman's example in full context as a point of departure - turning Krugman's very own example right back at him. The writer notes that Reagan had more of a right to blame his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, for the poor economic conditions early in his presidency, as his policy decisions signaled a brighter economic outlook. He argues, however, that the Obama administration is drastically different. While he continues to point to a poor economy resulting from "the last eight years", his policy decisions do not reflect a president conscious of the federal deficit.
“New York’s Antique Divorce Law”
ReplyDeleteEditorial 1/17/10
I read three letters in response to the aforementioned editorial. One was from a Pennsylvania attorney, another from a psychotherapist in Florida, and a man who went through a “no-fault” divorce. I found the third letter to be particularly intriguing.
The article summarized how the State of New York still has a “fault” law regarding divorce. This means that one spouse must be at fault for a divorce to be completed. New York is the only state in the union that still does not have a no-fault law. The no-fault law allows divorces to proceed without singling out one party for wrong-doing during the marriage. The author of the editorial states “the current [laws] inflict serious financial and emotional costs. Litigants end up spending thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees, and courts devote significant time to airing the painful and highly personal details of a breakup.” The author further argues that “fault” divorces are more mentally challenging for all involved, including children.
The third letter responds to the editorial by concurring with the emotional damage involved in a “fault” divorce but also adds that during a “no-fault” divorce, the potentially “injured” spouse and children are victimized a second time because a “no-fault” divorce dissolves the difference between right and wrong and seeks to make everything equal.
I believe the letter writer had an emotional drive to respond to the editorial. It is possible that he went through a no-fault divorce, was victimized by his ex-wife, and believes that his ex-wife should have paid more for the extra-martial transgressions that she may have committed. He frames his letter on the idea that victimized spouses and children should not be the victims of divorce and that the transgressor should be completely at fault. His audience should be those who went through with a divorce and suffered greatly from it.
I read the article “Walking the Walk on School Reform”. In this article, the author explains that the President of the American Federation of Teachers union, Randi Weingarten, has a proposal to reform teacher evaluation because the teacher evaluations now seem to be poorly executed. The author says that these poorly done teacher evaluations are a punishment to the children because their teachers teach ineffectively. The author agrees with Ms. Weingarten’s proposals, happy to see more pressure being put on the National Education Association to change the way teachers are evaluated.
ReplyDeleteIn his letter to the editor pertaining to this article, Michael Wolk completely agrees with the author stating that it is the responsibility of the school to create a place for children where their education is taught by excellent teachers. He agrees that if teachers do not meet expectations, they should be let go because the children are of the most concern.
Michael Wolk responded to the “Walking the Walk on School Reform” editorial because he strongly agreed with it and thought it is a very important issue in the educational system today. Wolk is a retired elementary school principal, teacher, and school psychologist so this issue hit him almost directly. He writes the letter “wholeheartedly” agreeing with the editorial but also continues with his own reasons as to why this reform needs to go through, stating “children first and foremost”. In his letter, Wolk is implicitly addressing the American Federation of Teachers union and the National Education Association saying that something needs to change in order to give the education to the children that they need.
In the article “Review of Jet Bomb Plot Shows More Missed Clues” the threat of terrorist attacks and the precautions that the United States has made are further explored. President Obama was worried about possible terrorist attacks on Christmas day, and in retrospect many warning signs were not regarded as noteworthy. It was upsetting to the president and the members of the government that they were unable to put the pieces together that show potential for an attack. The American government did not expect the officials of Qaeda to be advanced enough to plan an attack, and were surprised to find out that they were training people to become suicide bombers. They tried to monitor the different dealings and plans of Al Qaeda members, but they missed a lot of information that could have been potentially harmful. The letter to the editor written by Laurie Caplan expresses her dismay at the governments thoughts of Al Quaeda not being advanced enough to send agents into the United States. It does not make sense to have all of the airport screenings and rules if we are only thinking wishfully and not preparing for the worst. We do not want another September 11th and it is frustrating that the government is not trying to prevent it to the best of their ability. Laurie wrote this letter out of frustration due to the information that she gained from this article. She is addressing the American people as well as the government trying to express her dismay of the system and the job that the government is doing. Obviously she values her safety and the safety of those around her and wants the government to take it seriously.
ReplyDeleteThe article, “Some at Fed See a Need to Do More for Housing” by David Streitfeld and Jack Healy discusses the effect of the government’s plan to help the current housing crisis. Despite the fact that the unemployment rate is still high, the housing market is tending toward the positive side. However the argue is that the housing market is only looking up because of the government’s tax credits for home buyers, and the Fed’s program to hold down mortgage. Data showed that long term interest rates were rising rapidly, while mortgage applications to purchase houses were falling. These authors are concerned that as soon as these programs end the housing market will be back in the slump. Within the same day that this article was published, Stuart Saft, a lawyer, and chairman of the Global Real Estate Practice at Dewey & LeBoeuf wrote a letter responding to this article. In his letter he expresses a different concern toward the housing market. It is not that there’s a lack of demand, but a deficiency in credits. The banks can’t lend as long as they still have significance troubled loans on their books, and has to sustain a certain figure to meet regulatory capital requirements.
ReplyDeleteSince the Saft works for as a lawyer for a real estate company, he sees problems that his company faces every day. After the reading the article, Stuart Saft disagreed with the blamed that David Streitfeld and Jack Healy has assigned to the concern with housing crisis. He may see people being denied for credits, and think that that is the majority of the problem. So he sees the closer picture. But maybe it’s harder to see the bigger picture, where people don’t have the money to invest in a property right now, because of a lack of job, or an insufficient savings…His letter was very short and concise, and prompted to anyone who’s curious about the economy. Working very close to this topic provides good insights, but may also blinds others within the bigger picture.
In "Prisons and Budgets," the issue of population in prison is addressed. In the past 20 years, the amount of people has nearly tripled to over 1.5 million which is causing many problems. The overincarceration of criminals is becoming too expensive, especially in the economical times today. It argues that many of these "criminals" are harmless drug offenders that can be punished in other terms that would solve this problem. The crucial space and money is being occupied by people that don't necessarily need to be there.
ReplyDeleteThe letter to the editor, written by Jamie Fellner, was prompted by her agreement with the letter that incarceration of inmates who are drug offenders is not an effective way to deal with the issue. She points out that the issue shouldn't be viewed simply as a response to cost, but rather that the imprisonment of drug offenders makes no sense. She suggests other alternatives to solving this issue by either releasing these people earlier, or to just avoid sending so many of these people to prison in the first place.
The editor's article is addressed to those who believe that every crime - whether it is "simple" as a drug offense that harms no one or something far more dangerous such as murder - ought to be punished by prison. The constraints he faces are threefold -- one is the idea on the part of many people in society that drug offenses are not "harmless" but lead to many other crimes or offenses; the second is that people who commit crimes must be punished in order to serve as a deterrent to others who would do the same; the third is that by incarcerating someone is good for the individual in that it will lead them to reform their life.
The main point of the article, “The Pragmatic Leviathan” by David Brooks is that President Obama has attempted to become too controlling in most aspects of American public life in spite of his efforts to do what he determines to be the best option for the public. Brooks sites the fact that Americans are unique in the sense that they want their government to be a paradox, something that they can rally around in times of need but serving the public from behind the scenes, as the underlying reason he has not been successful of late and why his popularity is declining. President Obama, Brooks believes, should scale back the activities of the government to the point where it has a more reduced role in the lives of Americans who perceive the government as overstepping its boundaries. Joshua Singer’s letter in response to this is that Americans should get used to living in a nation with high taxes if they want a government to cater to their needs in the way that the U.S. government has. Singer then suggests that Obama’s recent decline in popularity is due not to his policies, but the fact that Americans are becoming aware of this reality and are increasingly uncomfortable with it.
ReplyDeleteSinger felt that it was necessary to respond to Brooks’ column because he felt Brooks was suggesting that a smaller, more limited government could maintain the services that Americans enjoy without raising taxes on those Americans. Singer is explicitly arguing his case to conservatives, who he seems to feel are deluding themselves with the notion that a good government can be cheap. However, the constraint he has in his argument is that same fact that Americans believe good government should be cheap and are uncomfortable with realizing that it might not be.
The article on January 17th, 2010 called “Looting Flares Where Authority Breaks Down,” by Simon Romero and Marc Lacey explains that the situation on Haiti is getting worse by the minute. People stealing goods from stores and ware houses that were destroyed by the natural disaster. The looters are killing innocent people for survival. They are creating chaos to the cities by attacking aid buses that have to be guarded by armed men and assaulting women if they have received anything from the aid trucks. It is basically saying it is the “survival of the fittest,” there is no control in stopping these people and police men are short handed to the thousands of people that live there. People are afraid to return to work since they lost everything and fear that thieves will try and steal more. And finally, when one is caught looting, they are beaten to death. One man was even burned alive. The main argument to this piece is that no one should act the way there are in a situation like this. People are killing for there own survival and trying the law out the window.
ReplyDeleteThe letter to the editor regarding this article explains that he believes that looting is not a crime. He also explains that when faced with a natural disaster, in a life and death situation that doing whatever it takes to find the necessary essentials is not a wrong thing to do. The main augment to this piece is this man is saying when faced in a natural disasters no one thinks about following the rules but finding their own way in surviving.
Reading the letter to the article writer, the letter writer disagrees with the article because he feels that looting is a mean to survival and it should not be frown upon since no one is in this situation but the people from Haiti. Both pieces are trying to explain that we should still help these people but they way the people of Haiti are acting is judge differently.
The article “Foreign Languages Fade in Class- Except Chinese,” Sam Dillon discusses the decline in foreign language education in the United States. Many schools across the nation are dropping either parts or all of their foreign language programs. The availability of German and French for school students has been decreasing over the last couple of years, while the study has remained a focal point for the American curriculum. One language is on the rise however. The study of Chinese has been increasing over the past decade. This is thanks to several factors. Americans are acknowledging the importance of china in the world economy. As a result of this, people see an understanding of the Chinese language as a road to opportunity. The only thing inhibiting the progress of education in this language is the availability of teachers, and that is going up thanks to several foundations and the Chinese government t paying for natives Chinese teachers to come and teach in the U.S. The letter responding to the article confirms the fact that Chinese education has been increasing her recent years. The writer of the letter goes on to express that in order for this language to succeed in the America, school districts need to invest in programs and teachers. Outside agencies will not be around forever to pay for such programs.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the letter is addressing the American people. The author doesn’t appear to have to deal with any constraints, she is just kind of talking like a know it all. At the end of the letter, it says that the author is the director for education programs for some US-China relations group. He just wants a place where he can say his unimportant opinion and try to sound smart by saying facts that don’t add anything to any argument.
The original piece, “Corporate Spending in Our Elections”, was written on January 22 and is discussing the bill that was just overturned by the Supreme Court allowing businesses to contribute as much as they want to political campaigns. The writer, Kuziemko, argues that this bill will feed into the power of the “Military-Industrial Complex”, or the corporate and military takeover of our government. Kuziemko also argues that this bill will undermine the wants and needs of the middle-class and working-class Americans. The first letter to the editor takes the same side as Kuziemko. Wagner states that corporations will be able to hand pick those they want in power just by check writing. He also fears that any quality candidates whom will run could be quickly derailed by these large corporations looking out for their best interests, not the American peoples’ best interest. The best use of rhetoric used by Kuziemko was quoting Eisenhower’s 50 year old warning of the growth of the “Military Industrial Complex”. Eisenhower is considered to be one of our most intelligent presidents which gives him (or his idea) ethos. Also, by using the terms: “middle class and working Americans”, Kuziemko is appealing to our pathos, since the majority of Americans fall into one of those two categories and that makes the majority of us feel at risk of losing control. The main value’s Kuziemko is trying to get across to the readers is that if we do not show extreme dislike for this bill; we could lose control of our government and country. He believes we can take back our control through the power of voting. Kuziemko explains that by allowing a “conservative” Supreme Court in power, we let this bill pass.
ReplyDeleteThe article on the front page of the New York Times "A Deluge of Donations via Text Message" by Stephanie Strom congratulates the combined efforts of the American Red Cross and the United States government in getting the text message donation initiative off the ground. According to the author, the Red Cross was very transparent with their funds because of their close connection with the government and the extreme flow of funds from donators. The form of mobile donating was unprecedented or at least not very efficient. With the goverment's help, the Red Cross was able to go directly to mGive whom processes donations and avoid major fees from cell phone companies. The letter to the editor seems complementary to the mobile donation process. It calls for more corporate donation as well.
ReplyDeleteThe letter to the editor is directed toward the American people who have "priorities" to help others. She is asking why if the American Red Cross found so much help form the government and used its funds for donation, why can't large corporations whose businesses were completely saved by the government can't match a donation like they hand out bonuses. She is obviously liberal in nature and this could constrain her arguments.
The article I chose is “Put Your Money Where Your Politics Are” which is written by Tobin Harshaw. He gave the opinion about the relationship between president’s voting and million dollars sent by corporations. He excerpted several paragraphs from the opinionators from different career. The same point they considered is that nowadays corporations used spending money on voting as a tool to invest their business. The difference between is that someone thought it as a destroy of democracy. Someone thought it as a right way to make profit between each other. Someone who is against recommended a new way to elect the president such as voting on-line which can stop those corporations exploiting it as an tool and taking money issue away through the voting progress.
ReplyDeleteI also read two letters that are highly recommended and is responding to the article. The first one that is posted by sgrAstar argued that corporation is an association of individuals. But those individuals are not most part of the citizens in America. It’s unfair between other citizens and these people who can finally get advantage from spending money on voting president. The government and those corporations are playing a game and making profit with ignoring most of the citizens.
The second letter written by Creadan put more focus on how it is endangering the democracy. This is the result of the wrong way government did and the weak of the Congress. He tried to criticize the government with several reasons instead of analyzing the content read from the article, which is anyway a related expanding comment for the article.
The article I read was titled “Despite Risks, Internet Creeps onto dashboard,” by Ashlee Vance and Matt Richtel. The article was originally published on January 6, 2010, and basically gives several arguments as to why having internet access on the dashboard of motor vehicles is not a good idea. While the internet system has useful functions such as voice command calling, it also has access to restaurant reviews and movie critiques, creating an unnecessary distraction to drivers. One car company, however, built an internet system that allows only certain functions while the car is moving, and only allows internet browsing while the vehicle is stopped. A letter to the editor was published on January 20, 2010 in response to the article, titled “High-Tech Dashboards”. The author of the letter claims that the original article doe not adequately describe current technological advances that provide information quickly and efficiently in an “integrated fashion, helping drivers to stay focused on the road.” The letter also argues that it I much safer to read directions off of an eye-level dashboard, than to look down at directions on a piece of paper.
ReplyDeleteIn this day in age, technology has become a major aspect of life as we know it. The topic of technology is one of interest to most Americans because it affects so many people. The letter was written because the author clearly felt like the varying sides of the story were not shown. The letter served to inform the American people that while internet at your fingertips while driving can be dangerous, it also has its benefits that outweigh those risks.
Here's Brooke's response:
ReplyDeleteI read the article “The Pragmatic Leviathan” by David Brooks. In this article, Brooks describes how Americans “want a government that is helpful but not imperious, strong but subordinate”. He believes that over the years, American voters have tried to maintain the sense of equilibrium between the power of the government and the freedom of the people. Brooks argues that while Obama has been a good leader in many ways and “has created a thoughtful, pragmatic administration marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate”, he has erred in trying to make himself the “irreplaceable man in nearly ever sphere of public life”. Brooks states that Obama “has been ubiquitous, appearing everywhere, trying to overhaul most sectors of national life: finance, health, energy, automobiles and transportation, housing, and education, among others.” In reaction to this, Americans have begun to trust the government less and want things to be left “to business” and that a limited federal government is needed.
In response to this article, Joshua Singer writes a letter entitled “An American Paradox”. Singer argues that “benefits that Americans now enjoy — for example, Medicare and Social Security payments at a retirement age well below life expectancy and tax subsidies for private health insurance and home ownership — cannot be delivered by a government with limited regulatory and fiscal authority”. He notes that Americans want both substantial government services as well as low tax rates. Singer argues that maybe the reason Obama is suffering in the poles is because “he has succeeded in making Americans uncomfortably aware of just how much money their government has to spend to subsidize the cherished “middle-class” American life”.
Joshua Singer writes this article in opposition to David Brooks. He begins by stating Brooks' opinion “that a limited federal government is compatible with Americans’ expectations of government services” and then goes on to make his argument of why a government of this kind would not be able to deliver the benefits that Americans now enjoy and want. I think that Singer addresses both conservative Americans in trying to convince them of his stance, as well as liberal Americans who would readily agree with him. Singer make the assumption that Americans want things such as Medicare and Social Security and then criticizes and points out how Americans (conservatives) forget that these kinds of things cost money, something that they like to criticize the government of using too much of.
I read the article "The Replacements" by Carolyn Bucior. In the article, she argues that substitute teaching is not as easy of a job as many people make it out to be. She speaks of how substitutes are not well trained or prepared for the classes they teach. She complains that many teachers take days off of school for reasons that are not important, such as leisurely activities and "mental health days."
ReplyDeleteIn response to this article, Ariel Nierenberg, a third grade teacher, refutes the generalization that Carolyn Bucior has made. Nierenberg says that for every one teacher that takes days off of school for no important reason, there are many many more that work countless hours for their students' benefit. Nierenberg says that the generalization that Bucior made about teachers being somewhat lazy and irresponsible about taking days off only applies to a select few.
Ariel Nierenberg was probably prompted to respond to this article because she felt personally hurt by the generalizations Carolyn Bucior made in the article. Because Nierenberg is a teacher herself, she knows what it's like to have to care for a classroom of students. The audience that Nierenberg is addressing in her letter is those who are unaware of the time that teachers put into their work and therefore might take Carolyn Bucior's generalization in her article as fact. Nierenberg puts forward her own belief that most teachers work tirelessly so that their students get a quality education, and that they are irresponsible with their students and lesson plans is only a small percent of the teacher population.