Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Researched Argument 2
Iran must be sanctioned to stop its nuclear research. Nuclear technologies are dangerous: not only because of risks like radiation but also because it is not too far of a leap from nuclear power to nuclear weapons. In a world of tension and continued holy wars, allowing this development is extremely ill advised. Iran says it intends only to develop nuclear power. However, when the world asks the Iranian government to be open about its progress, it has yet to respond. The Iranian government has also been asked to allow the uranium it has to be enriched in another country to ensure it is enriched for power needs and not weapon needs. It has refused. This further concerns the world that Iran is not being truthful about its endeavors. Sanctions are needed to bring this country in line.
Our current plan of action does appear to be sanctions. President Barack Obama has recently stated that he is discussing “a package of potential steps” to dissuade the Iranians from moving forward on its nuclear program (Burns). Recently, President Obama has asked Iranian leaders to allow Germany to enrich its uranium for nuclear power. They have refused. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, believes, "You may have a political system [in Tehran] that is so fractured, that is so at each other's throat, that they are incapable of making a decision of this magnitude" (Burns). Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said, “It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues ... We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us” (Sanger and Broad). This has resulted in a censure against Iran demanding immediate freeze of operations on its once secret uranium enrichment plant.
Taking into account the enrichment plant that Iran was trying to keep secret and its lack of cooperation when it comes to the enrichment of its uranium, it is hard to mistake the intent. Perhaps Trita Parsi is right in saying that the country is just so broken. It seems as if they themselves do not know what is truly happening. In either case the country’s further development of nuclear technologies is a dangerous event. If the Iranian government is keeping it a secret intentionally then we know it has some plan to attack with these weapons of mass destruction. Even worse, if it is broken enough to not know what is happening, then who is pushing this development? These weapons would fall into the hands of whoever is responsible for these actions. This means we would know nothing of their intentions or who they are. With terrorist attacks in mind this idea is even more a concern.
What we need is to have Iran come clean on what it is doing or admit it needs help. If Iran cannot come forward and declare it does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and follow it with actions that support this statement, we need to impose sanctions on the country until they comply. The world is not asking them to not use nuclear power for civilian use. Russia currently has a contract to build a nuclear power plant in Iran which would not come online until the end of the year. Russia recently announced that plant will not come on line as planned. However, they do state the recent developments are not part of the delay (Schwirtz). Iran’s lack of cooperation will continue to cause delays on its power front. Many countries have made the message clear that the proliferation of nuclear weapons just increases the risk of a nuclear war. In 1995 the NPT Review and Extension Conference in New York decided to extend the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons indefinitely and without conditions extended. This treaty was signed by nearly every country in the world with the exception of three, India, Israel, and Pakistan. Iran has signed the treaty but has been found breaking the agreement (IAEA). It should also be noted the North Korea had signed but removed itself from the treaty effective on April 10, 2003, making North Korea the first state ever to withdraw from the treaty (Chaffee).
In a world where we know the risks of continuing to pollute our planet, why do we not start a new reform? We should have no more nuclear processing for power or weapons. The production of nuclear power produces nuclear waste that must be disposed of. Current methods of disposal are to box up the waste and burry it. This is a short sighted solution to power. Choosing a form of power like solar that is 100% renewable and produces no byproducts that are not recyclable is a much smarter solution to the world’s energy needs.
If countries like Iran need power why not offer solar as an option? Give them incentives to use solar or other green sources. If their intentions are for power and not weaponry then the added incentives we offer could not only allow for greener energy production worldwide but also help eliminate tensions over nuclear proliferation. What incentives could the world offer? One, we can lift any sanction imposed due to the nuclear concerns once transparency has been established that the nuclear issue is off the table and they are moving toward greener solutions. Also, we could offer to share technology advancements to ensure these still developing countries are using the current standard and getting the most effective energy.
It has been said that the world has lost patience with Iran and is demanding it come forward, without delay, and comply. Why not assist a country obviously in need of assistance make a smarter decision about its energy choice and at the same time help eliminate worldwide concern about any ulterior motives that may be currently perceived. Not only should we offer these changes but as a country we should also accept this policy of moving away from nuclear energy and other fossil fuel energy sources and start thinking about our long- term goals as a people. Why not strive for a clean sustainable society with ideals we live and share? We should lead by example and help bring peace and green energy to the world.
Chaffee, Devon. “North Korea’s Withdrawal from Nonproliferation Treaty Official” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, April 2003. Web 29 Nov. 2009. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/04/10_chaffee_korea-npt.htm .
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran” International Atomic Energy Agency, Nov. 2003. Web 29 Nov. 2009. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf .
Sanger, David E. and William J. Broad. “U.N. Nuclear Agency Calls Iran Inquiry ‘Dead End’” New York Times, 26 Nov. 2009. Web 29 Nov. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/world/middleeast/27nuke.html?scp=4&sq=iran%20watchdog&st=cse .
Schwirtz, Michael. “Nuclear Plant Built for Iran Is Delayed, Russia Says” New York Times, 16 Nov. 2009. Web 29 Nov. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/world/europe/17russia.html .
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Researched Argument 1
Why do we not allow gay marriage in our country? Currently our federal law allows states to not recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 (Stritof). Federal law currently does not define marriage even though it does not recognize gay marriages. Recently, there was an effort to define marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" (Lavoie). However, this was removed from the bill before final passage in favor of recognizing each state's right to define marriage (Lavoie). The most common public objection is that it is a sin, or the Bible says it is wrong. Then there are other objections that vary from the concern for these couples raising children to arguments that marriage is to promote procreation and this cannot be done in a gay marriage. Despite all the objections we are ignoring the civil rights of these couples.
There are two kinds of marriage in our country. There is a spiritual marriage. This is a marriage between two people under a higher power that they wish to acknowledge. This can be any god, goddess, or belief they wish to accept. There is no legal ramification to this form of marriage, nor any legal benefit. This part of marriage is mainly for the people involved. It is the couple‘s way of affirming their devotion to each other. This currently is available to anyone who wants it. This is what the marriage has been for thousands of years and this is the form of marriage most people are objecting to based on their spiritual beliefs. It is fine to believe your God does not condone gay unions. That is part of our country's religious freedom. The differences begin when a couple applies for a marriage license. Many couples do this at the same time as their spiritual union. This makes the marriage legally binding as well. This is the part of marriage that gays are being excluded from.
So we are not talking about a spiritual union. We are talking about the legal union of a marriage license. This is the current institution of marriage. This is what offers all the legal rights and benefits that come along with this marriage. This is law, not spirituality. This marriage is combining legal assets like income. It is legally binding someone as a beneficiary or allowing for equitable division of property if they divorce. Marriage allows a spouse to make medical decisions for their partner if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Could you imagine not being allowed to express your loved one's wishes if they became ill or incapacitated? As a gay couple it would be possible a loved one, whom they considered their spouse, would have no legal right to declare their wishes. If their partner dies a wrongful death they have no legal recourse to sue for their loss (NOLO). These are rights that should not be denied any couple. Allowing gay marriage would protect these rights for these couples. I spoke with Dr. Vincent Silenzio, a well respected family medicine doctor and advocate for gay and lesbian health, on this topic. He said, “These rights are granted married couples automatically because it is presumed that a spouse is intimately familiar with the wishes of their partner, and would help with medical or legal decision-making with the best interests of their spouse as the most important factor. Of course, this is a lot to presume. But that's where this policy framework for partner's rights flows from.” So would it not make sense that these rights should be extended to gay couples as well. Allowing them to marry would make these lines less blurred and allow these couples equal rights under the law.
Another major opposition to gay marriage is these couples raising children. To me this point is moot as an argument against allowing gays to marry. Gay couples currently raise children, married or not. According to the 2000 Census data about twenty percent of gay couples are raising children (Romero et al. 1). These numbers however are estimated to be much higher, closer to thirty-seven percent, due to limitations in their data collecting. The same study found under fifty percent of married couples have children under the age of eighteen (Romero et al. 3). How many more gay couples would have children if they were afforded the same rights as any other couple? We no longer live in an age where marriage automatically implies children. In these cases we need to look at what is best for the children. Gay couples are going to have children. By not allowing them the same rights and resources, we put the child at a great disadvantage. Their parents cannot rely on the same family laws as current married couples. What happens to these children when a couple splits (such as a divorce)? They have no ability to request child support assistance, or if their parents die, they are excluded from social security benefits that would be otherwise offered to them if these marriages were recognized by the federal government.
When need to look at marriage as a union of two people who share economic and social responsibilities. This will also offer bonds of trust and reliance upon one another.We then see this can easily apply to any couple. The issue is not whether or not to allow gay marriage. It is about providing the same rights to all of our citizens without discrimination of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Our country was founded on the idea of separation of Church and State. If we offer benefits to one couple all couples should have equal rights to these benefits. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens. Denying a gay couple marriage is denying them equal rights under the law. Thomas Jefferson once said, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression” (Heritage).
We need to start offering equal rights to all. Our country once felt slavery was an acceptable practice. Many now believe denying gays the right to marry is acceptable. It is not. When asked if you support gay marriage, before you answer, I ask you to consider it not from the spiritual sense, but from a legal view as a binding contract between two people. Is it still wrong? As Americans we are required to protect our civil rights and to treat each other equally under the law. We need to separate Church from State so we can continue to protect the rights of all. Not allowing gay marriage in our law is discrimination. Not allowing it in our churches is our right as Americans. This is the difference we need to consider when addressing this change. As John F. Kennedy once said, “In giving rights to others which belong to them, we give rights to ourselves and to our country.”
Heritage Foundation, The. "Thomas Jefferson Still Lives" heritage.org, Web 27 Oct 2009. http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/em724.cfm .
Lavoie, Denise. “Massachusetts Sues The Federal Government Over Definition Of Marriage” The Huffington Post, July 2009. Web 2 Nov. 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/massachusetts-sues-the-fe_n_228044.html .
NOLO. “Marriage Rights and Benefits” nolo.com. Web 27 Oct. 2009. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html .
Romero, Adam P. , et al. “Census Snapshot” The Williams Institute, Dec. 2007. Web 27 Oct. 2009. http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USCensusSnapshot.pdf .
Silenzio, Vincent M. B. Personal Interview. 3 Nov. 2009.
Stritof, Sheri, and Bob Stritof. "Defense of Marriage Act - - DOMA" about.com, Web 3 Nov. 2009. http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/g/doa.htm .
Friday, February 5, 2010
Personal Argument Essay
As a mother of two boys I have had to make a decision, along with my husband, about vaccinating our two boys against the novel H1N1 virus. This was not an easy choice for me. I knew the vaccine could be painful for my boys and possibly harmful. My children have already received their seasonal flu vaccination this year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or CDC has been clear that the seasonal vaccine will not protect against the novel H1N1 influenza (CDC). I wanted to be sure the benefits of the vaccination outweighed the risks.
One of my main concerns is the fast pace at which that the vaccine has been tested and produced. Can it really be ready for distribution this quickly? Is that not what the long extensive testing is for? Is the new vaccine safe? Some have questioned the safety of the vaccine because of the rush that was placed on the vaccination's creation and testing. The CDC has stated, in a recent webcast, that the novel H1N1 vaccination has not only been produced safely, but also had additional testing just to be sure it was safe. The novel H1N1 vaccine has been manufactured in the same way as the seasonal influenza vaccination that our country has been using for decades. The FDA still ran clinical testing, however, to guarantee no additional side-effects would arise (CDC).
I also considered the possibly harmful additives that are used to preserve the vaccination. These chemicals can vary by manufacturer.However, some common ones are mercury and formaldehyde. Both of these substances are in extremely low quantities just as in the seasonal vaccination I currently give my children. I have not seen any adverse affects from the seasonal vaccination so I do not expect to see any effect from the novel H1N1 vaccination. I do still worry, however, as my children take more and more vaccinations if these small amounts could possibly add up enough to be an issue. For example, the CDC is recommending both the seasonal flu shot, the novel H1N1 (possibly two doses), and even in some cases the bacterial pneumonia vaccine, because a large number of the investigated deaths from the novel H1N1 virus have also found traces of bacterial pneumonia (CDC). Now add on top of these three (possibly four) shots and any other vaccinations the children are due for during their visit I must ask myself: could I possibly poison them?
I also took into account my children's chances of contracting the novel H1N1 virus, and if the vaccination would be less of a risk than serious complications from the virus. According to the CDC the largest age group currently affected by the virus is people ages five to twenty-four. This age range accounts for fifty percent of the current reports. My husband and I are both above this range and both of our children are below. My husband and I both work from home so we have no concern about work environment and the children do not attend school. So there should be less of an immediate risk for them contracting the virus. My children are also both healthy with no known underlying issues which should also help reduce their risks of any extreme outcome if they were to contract the novel H1N1 virus.
What other methods could I use to help protect against the novel H1N1 virus? The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has suggested the following everyday steps to protect your health:
•Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
•Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze. Alcohol-based hand cleaners are also effective.
•Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread this way.
•Try to avoid close contact with sick people.
•Stay home if you are sick until at least 24 hours after you no longer have a fever (100°F or 37.8°C) or signs of a fever (without the use of a fever-reducing medicine, such as Tylenol®). Read detailed information about how long to stay away from others.
•Follow public health advice regarding school closures, avoiding crowds and other social distancing measures (HHS).
Presented with the current facts and my previous experience with the seasonal vaccination, I do believe my husband and I will vaccinate our children. I do not believe we will rush to be in the first rounds. I do not feel we are in a high risk situation. The limited supplies should go to those truly in need. This will also allow time to verify that there are no added side effects the clinical trials failed to represent. This will make the decision an even safer one for my children. In the mean time we will continue to practice good habits like washing our hands often and avoiding close contact during the flu season.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Inactiveated Fact Sheet”:n pag. Web 5 Oct. 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-inact-h1n1.pdf .
“Webcast: Sebelius, Napolitano Answer H1N1 Flu Questions from the American People” :n pag. Web 5 Oct. 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/webcast.htm .
“Interim guidance for use of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine during novel influenza A (H1N1) outbreak”:n pag. Web 5 Oct. 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/ppsv_h1n1.htm .
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) “Prevention & Treatment”:n pag, Web 5 Oct. 2009. http://www.flu.gov/individualfamily/prevention/index.html .
Written Argument Analysis
In an excerpt from her book Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States (649), Sister Helen Prejean is opposed to the death penalty and is seeking it being abolished. She has some very compelling arguments.
Sister Helen sets a clear tone for her work in the first paragraph: "I think of the running debate I engage in with “church” people about the death penalty. “Proof texts” from the bible usually punctuate these discussions without regard for cultural context or literary genre of the passage invoked. (Will D. Campbell, a Southern Baptist minister and writer, calls this use of scriptural quotations “biblical quarterbacking.”)" (649)
She notes that she often debates the subject of the death penalty. This brings a sense of authority to her stance and helps her credibility as an authority. She also finds most arguments fail because of the use of biblical references out of context. Appealing to our sense of reason, she describes the most common “proof texts” and sets them in proper context. This was an effective argument because she takes the most commonly used references to support the death penalty and places them in to context to show they were not Jesus supporting death as punishment but more about Mosaic laws at the time these stories were written.
Her weakest argument was the section discussing the history of the Church since Jesus's teachings. Here she speaks about the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church and the invention of "original sin." Sister Helen concludes, Augustine used “original sin” to control the church’s subjects by violent means, even death (651). This part of her argument could have been left out. It felt more like a frustrated attack at the church rather then helping support her cause of abolishing the death penalty. She does, however, supply a source for the information she provides about the documented corruption, wealth, and status that it brought to the Church. This helps again in giving her credibility by showing some of her research.
In her closing argument she states an understanding that we allow executions not because of malice but more out of ignorance of what really happens during these events. Sister Helen has attended an execution and is confident if they were made public we would be ashamed of the process and be forced to abolish the practice. She is speaking from the heart here. This is not a successful argument, however, because she has seen an execution and could share the things she has seen to help break the secret. In this text, however, here she just provides general terms and descriptions of “torture and violence” (653).
Another strong argument from Sister Helen was a list of other actions that if we were to follow the laws set forth in the bible would also be punishable by death: contempt of parents, trespass upon sacred ground, sorcery, bestiality, sacrifice to foreign gods, profaning the Sabbath, adultery, incest, homosexuality, and prostitution. Sister Helen then goes on to surmise that if we try to use the bible as justification for the death penalty, then the above offenses would also be worthy of the same punishment. This argument was very successful as it appeals to our sense of logic when looking to the bible as justification for using the death penalty.
Sister Helen also discusses two flares of hope, as she puts it, Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King (652). She was referencing a short essay by Susan Jocoby where she discusses nonviolent aggression. She continues to grow her credibility with more shown research. This is a key point of her argument. Her point here is change can come without violence and if we follow Jesus’s words of compassion, we cannot afford to allow executions. Sister Helen says they cost us to much, morally (652). For a person of faith, this argument would be very successful by appealing to one‘s belief in Jesus.
One thing she failed to address here is the alternatives to the death penalty. Life in prison is costly to our society as well. The cost of housing, feeding, clothing, and maintaining a prisoner takes a toll on our country's economy, and there is a point when the benefit of the greater good does outweigh the life of one. Sister Helen made her best argument when she said, “I would not want my death avenged -- especially by government, which can’t be trusted to control its own bureaucrats or collect taxes equitably or fill a pothole, much less decide which of its citizens to kill” (649).
Prejean, Helen. “Executions Are Too Costly—Morally.” In Barnet and Bedau 649-653.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Visual Argument Analysis Essay
The photo is a portrait of a mother and three of her young children clinging to her as she stares pondering into the distance. Her mouth is slightly turned down in a frown, her children's faces are buried in her shoulders, and a baby laying in her lap. The look in her eyes is as if she does not even recognize her children are with her as she considers what will come of them. Her brow is heavily wrinkled with concern. Their clothes are torn, dirty, and tattered. The baby's face is covered in dirt as its eyes are closed. When looking closer at the baby one may ask, “Is it sleeping?” or “Has it passed away?” With the children's faces hidden one is only left to imagine if they are crying. Are they mourning the baby? Perhaps they are scared, like their mother, of what their fates will be.
The photo was taken during the Great Depression. This was a time when many people in our country were homeless, hungry, and looking for work. I believe Lange was trying to capture the urgency of the situation. We see in her photo these tired, poor, and hungry people starving as they sit waiting for opportunity. Lange spoke about the photo in an article she did in 1960, saying, “There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it” (EyeWitness).
Lange wanted to emphasize how bad things really were in the region and wanted to help. After taking the photos she contacted an editor of a San Francisco news paper about what she had seen and the condition of the camp. The editor then published an article with two of the photos Lange had taken that day. The government had also been alerted and aid was rushed to the camp (EyeWitness). Lange achieved her goal of helping this woman. The aid had much to do with the photographs she took that day. The photos told their story better than words could have described. Some could argue that she explained the context of what she had seen, but this photo was able to show what the words had been failing to portray: the pain. One could see the pain in the mother’s eyes. The heavy burden she carried with her was clearly seen in her face.
This image was a vision of suffering that people of the age were all too aware of but many had not seen with their own eyes. The photo was able to bring this tragedy to life for readers not only locally but around the country. It was able to bring aid to those pictured as well as many others suffering the same fate. This image is so striking and memorable. This is for good reason: it tells a story. The photo shows true emotions and it is sure to make an impact on nearly everyone who sees it. The image overall is a very touching picture that shows the pain of a world one could only imagine. It is tragically sad and strikingly beautiful all at the same time. It is compelling and intriguing. It is life and truth. Perhaps most of all it was an argument that won.
Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Bedau, eds. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. 8th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
EyeWitness to History, "Migrant Mother, 1936,": Web. 30 Aug. 2009. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com .
Prints & Photographs Online Catalog (PPOC), “Migrant Mother.”: Web. 30 Aug. 2009. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/pphome.html .
ENG 102 Papers...
I had been posting my papers from my ENG 101 class and I have not had a chance to post any of my ENG 102 papers. I will see if I get a moment if I can post them. There are 5 total.
Been a while
So I haven't written in a while. I have been very busy. School is still going well. Still holding a 4.0 so can't complain. Work has been crazy, they are adding 6 hours of mandatory OT every week for the next few weeks. With the kids and school this hurts a bit, but hey at least we'll have some extra cash out of it. Got our taxes done too. We think we might take the money and pay off the STi. This will be great since it would basically eliminate a car payment and we would then own the car. Still Kitting and taking photos. I just have a lot less time to do it. Overall however things are good. I feel blessed as always to have such a wonderful husband, and family, to have a great job, and many good friends in our life as well, to have our health and happiness. Hopefully I will have some time to get outside and catch some of the coming spring on the camera and get some knitting done so next year my friends can have warm stuff...lol
-Anna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)