Resilience

Parul Sehgal is making a point about the concept of resilience. She says that the world complains that the current trend of college students protesting- against racism, for example - are weak, sensitive, and whiny. They say that these students have no “grit,” that they live in a little bubble of safety and cannot really understand the complexities and the reality of racism. Sehgal argues that these students have redefined what it means to be resilient. In her opinion, resilience is to not only go through life tough and ready to take on the world, but to question the status quo and push for change.

Critics who view college students as “crybullies” don’t understand the reality of the situation. It’s hard for me to understand how anyone could view students protesting against racism as something negative. I believe there is so much strength in sticking up for yourself, for the people around you, for the way society should be. There’s no shame in standing for something. It doesn’t make you weak, or complaintive. It makes a point.

I also want to remark that Parul Sehgal is an incredible writer. She makes a strong argument without shoving her opinion down your throat. I especially love the way she ended her piece: “Why rise from the ashes without asking why you had to burn?” In one sentence, she summed up the strength in refusing to accept the way things are.

Sehgal, Parul. “The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience.’” The New York Times. Dec. 1, 2015. Web. Dec. 4, 2015.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

In his “Second Inaugural Address,” President Abraham Lincoln puts the blame on Southern states for creating and drawing out a war he views as have being preventable. He does this by discussing the history and the cause of the Civil War, then making a point about God and religion to illustrate the idea that that they can pray all they want, but God cannot answer both side's prayers. Lincoln’s purpose it to publicly hold the South accountable for the war. He uses a tone of condemnation and exasperation toward his intended audience, the southern states.

In his last paragraph, Lincoln is saying that the South started the war and committed the “offense” of slavery, so they deserve the punishment that God is handing them: “He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came.”

He also makes a good point when he talks about how God cannot answer the prayers of both sides. In the end, God will do what he wants regardless of who's praying for what.

I think it’s interesting that back then, it was normal that the President would refer to something as being the will of God, or even refer to religion at all in relation to politics in such a strong way. Today there is supposed to be separation of church and state. The President would likely never say that something political is God’s will. We’ve come so far from a world dominated and driven by religion to the secular world we live in today.

It’s important to me that there’s a separation of church and state in this country. There should be freedom of religion for everyone, of course, but separation between religion and government is necessary. The government should not impose religious views on the nation as a whole. Imagine if we were a Christian nation, like 17th century Britain. There would be no abortions, no equal marriage rights.  Everything would be viewed under the lens of religious values. There’d be no room for differing opinions. What makes America great is that there is space for everyone, regardless of religion, ethnicity, and sex.

"Stop Calling Abortion a Difficult Decision"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stop-calling-abortion-a-difficult-decision/2014/08/15/e61fa09a-17fd-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html

In her opinion piece, “Stop Calling Abortion a ‘Difficult Decision,’” in The Washington Post, Janet Harris argues that characterizing abortion as a difficult decision is an inaccurate and harmful to the cause. She first refers to instances when public figures have called abortion a “difficult decision,” then tellsthe story of her own decision to have an abortion, and lastly brings in data to prove her point. The author’s purpose is to urge the public to stop using this term. The author addresses an audience of mostly pro-choice advocates with an unwaveringly strong, convincing tone.

In her opinion piece, Harris writes: “When the pro-choice community frames abortion as a difficult decision, it implies that women need help deciding, which opens the door to paternalistic and demeaning “informed consent” laws.” I disagree. I don’t think this implies women need help deciding. I think you can still call an abortion a difficult decision while maintaining that it is an intensely personal decision that the woman herself has the right to make.

Harris brings up the fact that “a 2008 study found that 40 percent of unintended pregnancies, excluding miscarriages, ended in abortion” as evidence that women who abort unintended pregnancies don’t have a hard time making the decision to do so; but how can she know? The data doesn’t say anything about the process of making the decision. It simply shows how many unintended pregnancies resulted in abortion.

Selling a narrative where abortion is not a “difficult decision” would not be an accurate representation of all women. Sure, maybe the author herself didn’t give a second thought to having abortion, but it’s not right to say this is the case for everyone.

Additionally, if the author is so worried about how the pro-choice community frames the decision to have an abortion, her narrative of seeing abortion as a quick and easy solution to an unwanted pregnancy does so much more damage to the cause than calling it a “difficult decision.”

I think abortion should not be characterized by politicians and advocates as a difficult nor easy decision. Rather, it should just be viewed simply as a decision, because it’s different for every woman. I think people should speak to their own experiences, like Janet Harris and Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores (whom Harris quotes in the articles), did, instead of trying to characterize the decision process of all women who have abortions.

I am pro-choice because I believe the government should not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. However, I would be lying if I said the concept of abortion doesn't makes me uncomfortable. If I were, God forbid, ever faced with this decision, it would be an incredibly difficult choice. But what’s important is that it would be my choice. That should be the focus. I think all pro-choice advocates can agree with that.

Lincoln and the Potential Government Shutdown

In the past few months, Congress has been struggling to pass a budget for the upcoming year. Congress’s inability to lay out a budget caused a shutdown in 2013, and many people feel as though history might repeat itself this year. Passing the budget for 2016 has been particularly difficult because Republicans won’t agree to it unless it defunds Planned Parenthood. Congress had to decide on a budget before October 1st, which they did, successfully avoiding a government shutdown for now.  However, this budget only lasts until December 11th. Now the government will have to butt heads over the budget and face a potential government shutdown once again.

In his 1830 speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Lincoln talks about citizens who become fed up with an ineffective government. He specifically mentions people “seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better,” and losing faith in their government. This very much applies to our government today. Republicans and Democrats spend so much time arguing back and forth over the same issues, and very often it fails to result in any real change. So much division within Congress over the budget makes it incredibly difficult for the government to function. This leads to anger and frustration among citizens who witness so many political disagreements and very few decisions actually being made. The American people have already “become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose.”  We as a nation can only take so much of the stalemate within the government before we have to take action ourselves, which, as Lincoln describes, may even involve violating the law.

Blog #3- Frank Bruni precis

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-a-prudent-college-path.html

In his New York Times piece, “A Prudent College Path,” columnist Frank Bruni contends that there is value to choosing to apply to and/or attend an honors college at a public university over a more selective private university. The author develops this idea by first opening with an example, a student who chose to attend a public university’s honors college over one of the eight Ivy League schools that accepted him, then presents the case for this decision; a higher chance of being accepted, lower costs, larger and more diversified student bodies, and more of an egalitarian atmosphere. Bruni’s goal is to bring attention to these honor colleges and present the case for why it may be wise for a high school senior to consider applying to and attending these schools. He uses logos to persuade his audience of high school students with high standardized test scores that it is worthwhile to look into honors colleges at private universities.

Bruni makes great points in his article. I think attending an honors college if you are a student who need to be challenged academically is an incredibly smart choice. We seniors know very well that college is expensive, especially private universities. And to be accepted into Ivy League schools is ridiculously difficult and the competition is stressful. Being in an environment where you are receiving the quality education you deserve as well as being surrounded by a wide range of people who aren’t necessarily looking to knock you down on the way to the top is the best of both worlds. A quote by William Deresiewicz, a former, now disillusioned, Yale faculty member sums up the issues with our fixation on Ivy League schools:

"Our system of elite education manufactures young people who are smart and talented and driven, yes, but also anxious, timid, and lost, with little intellectual curiosity and a stunted sense of purpose: trapped in a bubble of prestige, heading meekly in the same direction, great at what they are doing but with no idea why they're doing it." 

While these public university honors colleges seem like a more realistic, less anxiety ridden college experience, I'd be interested to see data about how graduates of these colleges compare to graduates of Ivy League schools in terms of getting a good job, annual income, etc. Are these schools just as "good" academically as Ivy Leagues? Are the graduates just as fit to succeed in life? While we can't know for sure, I believe it's beneficial for exceptionally smart, perhaps Ivy League bound students to at least consider making the (granted, not easy!) decision to go to an honors college over an Ivy League. 

Blog #4- Mac vs. PC - "Out of the Box"

Apple Inc., in their commercial, “Out of the Box” (2006), claims that a Mac can be used right out of the box while a PC takes an excessive amount of time to set up. The commercial does this by using people to humorously represent a Mac and a PC; the Mac first lists everything he can do immediately after being purchased, then the PC serves as a contrast by describing all the steps he has to take to be ready for use, and finally the Mac jumps out of the box, telling the PC, “let me know when you’re ready!” The ad’s purpose is to show that a Mac, as opposed to a PC, doesn’t require a lengthy set up, in order to convince buyers to purchase a Mac over a PC. The commercial uses pathos, specifically humor and wit, to reel in prospective buyers.

Kristof precis

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html?_r=1

In his August 26th, 2015 New York Times opinion piece, "Lessons from the Virginia Shooting," Nicholas Kristof argues that stronger gun regulations must be implemented in order to bring down the rates of gun related deaths in America. Kristof starts by listing statistics relating to gun violence, such as that American children are fourteen times more likely to die from guns than children in other developed countries, then cites the Virginia shooting as an example of recent gun homicides, and lastly presents solutions for this widespread issue - more detailed background checks, limits on how many guns a person can buy in one month, and more research on how to make guns safer. The author's purpose is to assert that gun violence is a major issue in this country, and present possible ways to reduce the incredibly high number of gun related deaths per year. He writes with an assertive yet rational tone in an attempt to convince the reader that gun control is an issue that must be addressed immediately.


I wholeheartedly agree with the solutions that Kristof presents to this issue. I think it should be much more difficult for just anyone to obtain guns. Careful background checks, for example, seems like an obvious answer, so it's shocking that this is not a requirement everywhere. Banning guns is not realistic, and giving guns to everyone is ridiculous. There has to be a middle ground, and I think the regulations he supports in this article are totally plausible.

Cecil the lion

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/us/walter-palmer-whereabouts/

The news of the killing of Cecil the lion made headlines across the globe, generating incredible backlash directed at one man: Walter Palmer, a dentist from Minneapolis.

Palmer hunts big game for sport in his free time. He enjoys the game of killing wild animals. This type of hunting, referred to as trophy hunting, is not illegal when done in certain areas with the right permits. While I'm certainly not some big animal rights activist, I simply cannot wrap my head around how anyone could take the lives of animals when they are not presenting a danger to human beings, or when they are not going to be used for some practical purpose, such as for food.

A horrifying detail (side note: one that every news article makes sure to mention) is that Cecil suffered for 40 hours before being killed. Putting aside the fact that Cecil was well known and part of a long, ongoing study, there is just no excuse for harming or killing any lion.

Palmer claims that he didn't know Cecil was a local favorite and part of a study, and he believed that the appropriate hunting permits had been acquired. However, this is not the first time Palmer was involved with the illegal killing of a wild animal. In 2008 he was charged with illegally hunting a black bear in Wisconsin, for which he paid a $3,000 fine and spent a year on probation. Knowing Palmer's history with illegal hunting, wouldn't you think he'd do better research this time? If I were him, (which, thank God, I'm not!) I certainly would have made sure that everything I was about to do was legal. He also reportedly put down $50,000 to hunt a lion, just another reason why he should have checked out the entire situation beforehand. Either the man is incredibly stupid, or he naively thought that maybe this time, all the way in Africa, he could get away with it.

But of course, Palmer has not gotten away with. With a name to throw blame on, angry people have gathered outside his dental office, making it impossible for Palmer to carry on with business as usual. In fact, no one is even sure of Palmer's whereabouts at the moment. Wherever he is, he definitely should take some time to figure out how to get his life back together after managing to become one of society's most hated men. Maybe next time he'll think before picking up that crossbow. That is, if he's not in jail. Stay tuned, folks.