The article "Employers Have a Lot to Lose," by Barry Newman, is about fields of major employment that employ substantial amounts of illegal immigrants. New laws against employers make it hard for them to keep all of their workers, because of raids, and fines make it hard to stay financially stable. This article argues that employers shouldn't be the ones who have to decide whether someone is really an American or not. They don't want to face jail time for something they can't tell for sure. Also, how is an employer supposed to know if a document is forged or not? it just doesn't seem fair to hold the honest ones accountable. However, there is a side of unhonesty to this equation.
Some employers take advantage of the lower wages they can offer to illegal citizens. They don't always turn them away for economic reasons, even when thy know something is fishy. However, in times like these where racism is such an issue, even a simple speculation of a legal Mexican-American could lead to some kind of lawsuit. It's ridiculous, even in its purest form. Now that laws have been proposed (at the time of this article) regarding amnesty, or making these workers legal, this gives a sense of security to the workers. However, the employers would face harsher sanctions for the future employment of illegal immigrants (including long periods of jail time).
Although I believe so strongly against illegal immigration, I pity the employers from this article because of their situations. I think this situation is much like that of homeowners versus roofing/private construction workers. There are so few laws protecting the homeowner, however there are plenty of laws that help the contractor get paid in full, even if he/she does his/her job wrong or fails to finish a project. The homeowner is at a disadvantage, while the worker (immigrant) has laws protecting them, even if they are violating a law in the first place. I don't like what is being done to protect the employers, because they are legal citizens unlike the illegal immigrants. In no instance should an illegal alien have more of a right to be protected than an American citizen.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Response to "Death and Justice," by Edward Koch
This is an article written by a liberal who supports the death penalty. It starts out by quoting what convicted murderer said in their final words before they were executed. They all stated that "Killing was wrong, no matter who does it," including the government. This seems like a last stitch effort on the criminal's part to save their life. Murder is wrong, but words weren't going to separate these murderers from their heinous past. They were all put to death.
Mr. Koch argues seven main points, all of which I can relate to, and most of with which I agree entirely. Not only does he "debunkify" the myths associated with capital punishment, but he makes claims as well. He objects to statements like "no other democracy allows the death penalty." He claims that if other countries had the amount of crime (in comparison) and support from the general public on the topic, then they would. I agree, that in some of our largets cities the rates can be large in comparison (at least to smaller ones). Also, he raised the point that not many people are found innocent after death. In fact, those who make it off death row sometimes kill again, multiple times.
Mr. Koch is an extremely courageous man for backing his support of the death penalty as a liberal. (He supports most liberal causes, but it does not describe his stances on other things but as liberal) . It shows that party lines need to be drawn more vaguely, because no person in one party should take criticism for a believe they hold themselves. I do support the death penalty because I think of it as a deterrent, but Mr. Koch provided some other excellent examples, and he argued against some of the adjacent points.
The death penalty is a deterrent because it reinforces the morals of Americans. Most Americans wouldnt be able to commit murder, or don't endorse it because it goes against their religion, or for other reasons. When you add the fact that the government could have the right to execute someone for doing so, the average American would likely never attempt such a dangerous, immoral to their own morals) crime.
Mr. Koch supports the death penalty, much like I do. I am glad that he is not a political figures who holds his value according to basic party lines.
Mr. Koch argues seven main points, all of which I can relate to, and most of with which I agree entirely. Not only does he "debunkify" the myths associated with capital punishment, but he makes claims as well. He objects to statements like "no other democracy allows the death penalty." He claims that if other countries had the amount of crime (in comparison) and support from the general public on the topic, then they would. I agree, that in some of our largets cities the rates can be large in comparison (at least to smaller ones). Also, he raised the point that not many people are found innocent after death. In fact, those who make it off death row sometimes kill again, multiple times.
Mr. Koch is an extremely courageous man for backing his support of the death penalty as a liberal. (He supports most liberal causes, but it does not describe his stances on other things but as liberal) . It shows that party lines need to be drawn more vaguely, because no person in one party should take criticism for a believe they hold themselves. I do support the death penalty because I think of it as a deterrent, but Mr. Koch provided some other excellent examples, and he argued against some of the adjacent points.
The death penalty is a deterrent because it reinforces the morals of Americans. Most Americans wouldnt be able to commit murder, or don't endorse it because it goes against their religion, or for other reasons. When you add the fact that the government could have the right to execute someone for doing so, the average American would likely never attempt such a dangerous, immoral to their own morals) crime.
Mr. Koch supports the death penalty, much like I do. I am glad that he is not a political figures who holds his value according to basic party lines.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Response to "The Struggle to Be an All-American Girl," by Elizabeth Wong
This was a short essay that reflected on a young girl's past. She wanted so badly to be just like everyone else. When she was in elementary school, she would have to learn Chinese at a night school by her mother's request. Her mother wanted her to learn the foreign language associated with their Chinese heritage. However, the girl just wanted to be a kid and play. She also did not want to be affiliated with the culture. She described it as "humiliating," and referred back to her grandma's awful, "unbeautiful" voice in the supermarkets. After two years of Chinese school, she and her brother had finally convinced their mother to stop making them go there. This was a decision she clearly regretted.
At the end of this essay, the author shows how she wanted to fit in so badly at a young age. However, she reflects upon it now as saddening that she is more like a normal American, not by association, but by choice. Had she not gone the route of quitting Chinese school, perhaps she wouldn't have given up a piece of herself just to fit it. Being an American does have strong affiliations with our slurred English language, and it seems like this pushed her over the edge. She did not want to be unique, but later in life, everyone (at least I do) does.
I'm sure we can all think of a time when we did something for the wrong reasons. We may have even conformed to society's ways on something we objected to. This is what Elizabeth Wong did, and it appears that she regrets her decision everday. This story teaches us to hold on to our backgrounds and our unique habits, because they are the only thing that separate us from the neighbor next door who is your average American.
At the end of this essay, the author shows how she wanted to fit in so badly at a young age. However, she reflects upon it now as saddening that she is more like a normal American, not by association, but by choice. Had she not gone the route of quitting Chinese school, perhaps she wouldn't have given up a piece of herself just to fit it. Being an American does have strong affiliations with our slurred English language, and it seems like this pushed her over the edge. She did not want to be unique, but later in life, everyone (at least I do) does.
I'm sure we can all think of a time when we did something for the wrong reasons. We may have even conformed to society's ways on something we objected to. This is what Elizabeth Wong did, and it appears that she regrets her decision everday. This story teaches us to hold on to our backgrounds and our unique habits, because they are the only thing that separate us from the neighbor next door who is your average American.
Response to "Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder
The essay, 'Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder, is about a young man studying to be a scientist. When he meets with his professor for the first time and talks with him about his desired field of study (to study insects), he presents him with an unusual, yet daunting, task. The student had to study a fish. It seemed easy to him at first, however the professor expected him to see a lot more in the fish than that which was first visible. I think that the professor was trying to teach him a valuable lesson that goes deeper than what the eye can see. Observation is not always with your eyes.
In the beginning, the student was told to tell the professor what he observed about the fish. After a few minutes the professor came back into the room. He asked what the student had initially observed. The student answered back to him regarding its structure and body parts. The professor said, try looking deeper. Each time the student saw the professor, he would tell him all the new things he had observed, and each time the professor would say "That's good, but there's something else."
Finally, the student became confused as to what else there was to be seen of this dead fish. He decided to draw it on a sheet of paper. To this, the professor was delighted. He said something along the lines of, "Art is one of your best pairs of eyes." After this, the professor took the fish away from him and made him study without actually observing the object. After a few days, he came up with observations he hadn't when he actually had the fish in front of him. The professor proved a point to him that day. What i gathered from the article is that observations are to be made after looking at the objects. The thought process is obviously involved and infused with making and recording observations. After all, your eyes can't think, but they can give you the necessary information required to produce a thought about something you see.
In the beginning, the student was told to tell the professor what he observed about the fish. After a few minutes the professor came back into the room. He asked what the student had initially observed. The student answered back to him regarding its structure and body parts. The professor said, try looking deeper. Each time the student saw the professor, he would tell him all the new things he had observed, and each time the professor would say "That's good, but there's something else."
Finally, the student became confused as to what else there was to be seen of this dead fish. He decided to draw it on a sheet of paper. To this, the professor was delighted. He said something along the lines of, "Art is one of your best pairs of eyes." After this, the professor took the fish away from him and made him study without actually observing the object. After a few days, he came up with observations he hadn't when he actually had the fish in front of him. The professor proved a point to him that day. What i gathered from the article is that observations are to be made after looking at the objects. The thought process is obviously involved and infused with making and recording observations. After all, your eyes can't think, but they can give you the necessary information required to produce a thought about something you see.
Response to "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," by Daniel Alejandrez
The article "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," is one that threw me for a curveball. Many different ideas are produced throughout the article. Some ideas are tied so deep into the article, that I had to read certain sections twice to understand the connection the author was trying to make. The article reflects on the author's life, and doesn't fail to cover any bases. It discusses how hearing a man prach about his beliefs helped shape his own. It also jumps to some conclusions about the Mexican race, but ends on a good note in which everyone had a selfless moment that failed to recognize race.
Mr. Alejandrez was just an average Mexican fieldworker who had to travel to find work. His family had done the same before he did. One day, he realized that he was being paid over four times less than the men who just sat on a machine all day (he was working by hand). He hadn't noticed that he was even being treated unfairly until a radio broadcast came on one day. Cesar Chavez was on the radio telling his ideas about seeking justice. This struck a chord with Alejandrez, and he and the workers went on strike. The employers agreed to raise their wages a little, but that wasn't the point.
After this, the article skips around to when he organized dances that unified people at prison. It ends talking about an instance where gang members of opposing gangs held hands and dances unified. He mentioned that the world was happy for one moment, and that these people put aside their differences for those few minutes of bliss.
I think Mr. Chavez's radiocast was fortunate to be on at the time it was. It influenced Mr. Alejandrez to want to help all people, for the good of mankind. Mr. Alejandrez talked about how so many of his people (Mexicans) had wound up in jail, much like he did. I believe what he meant by this article is that if you unite everyone, differences will fail to be recognized by society, and no one group can be classified by its race. To Mr. Chavez, we all owe a little thanks. He stood up for justice, and each and every one of us can too (much like Alejandrez did).
Mr. Alejandrez was just an average Mexican fieldworker who had to travel to find work. His family had done the same before he did. One day, he realized that he was being paid over four times less than the men who just sat on a machine all day (he was working by hand). He hadn't noticed that he was even being treated unfairly until a radio broadcast came on one day. Cesar Chavez was on the radio telling his ideas about seeking justice. This struck a chord with Alejandrez, and he and the workers went on strike. The employers agreed to raise their wages a little, but that wasn't the point.
After this, the article skips around to when he organized dances that unified people at prison. It ends talking about an instance where gang members of opposing gangs held hands and dances unified. He mentioned that the world was happy for one moment, and that these people put aside their differences for those few minutes of bliss.
I think Mr. Chavez's radiocast was fortunate to be on at the time it was. It influenced Mr. Alejandrez to want to help all people, for the good of mankind. Mr. Alejandrez talked about how so many of his people (Mexicans) had wound up in jail, much like he did. I believe what he meant by this article is that if you unite everyone, differences will fail to be recognized by society, and no one group can be classified by its race. To Mr. Chavez, we all owe a little thanks. He stood up for justice, and each and every one of us can too (much like Alejandrez did).
Response to "Vows," by Christopher Caldwell
*This Response does not argue against the idea of gay marriage, but against the idea that it would make homosexual couples more acceptable in today's society*
"Vows," by Christopher Caldwell, is a response to an article written by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is a Washington journalist who mainly writes/responds to gay issues, and who happens to be gay himself. Rauch wrote an article pertaining to the sanctity of marriage. In it, he comes to the conclusion that gay marriage fits the definition and standards of regular marriage. However, Mr. Caldwell, who wrote the article that responds to Rauch's, completely disagrees with Caldwell's conclusion, and how he came to his overall reasonings. I mostly agree with Mr. Caldwell, in that legalizing gay marriage would not solve the problems that gays face in America. There are numerous logical ideas against this information, including lowering standards as opposed to meeting them and changing a law that many consider sacred (this could make quite a few people angry).
Rauch comes to the conclusion that once gay marriage is legalized, that gay citizens in America will be "seen in a new light." He argues that society does not accept homosexuals because they do not conform with society's ideals and traditions. One of these prominent traditions includes marriage. Because homosexuals cannot marry, he argues, they are seen as adulterous and threatening to the community. This idea seems to be a bit nieve. Allowing marraige does not make homosexual couples more "acceptable" in society than before. Caldwell argues that if marriage is altered to fit the desires of homosexuals, that marriage will no longer be a norm in society. The concept of marriage would lose its moral luster, and their would be no new push to accept gay couples, because gay marriage would still be a new idea. (and) New ideas are often not accepted at first, or possibly even at all. There is a method of building up to do so, and going from nothing to marriage is a large step. Quite possible there is a step inbetween no legal tie and marriage.
Also, legalizing gay marriage would create the same kind of problematic opportunity for polygamists. If made legal, not only would it fail to change the unfavorable opinion of homosexuality in America, but it would give polygamists a reason to shout for change as well. Sub-common religions like Mormonism would demand that multiple marriages to the same partner be legal. Once the definition of marriage is altered for a minority group, a majority of Americans would be upset. Also, once altered, the legalities involved with marriage would change altogether, because it only takes one (precedent) case to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for decades. Marriage would not make any difference to society's acceptance of gays (however, I'm not saying gays wouldn't enjoy the right to get married).
In conclusion, Caldwell was right in that Roush failed to realize that changing a normality in society to fit a new idea, is altering the normality as society knows it. Upon changing the idea, it is no more normal and holds less weight within the socially acceptable boundaries in America. It would make no difference to most of America (Roush's reasonings were off).
"Vows," by Christopher Caldwell, is a response to an article written by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is a Washington journalist who mainly writes/responds to gay issues, and who happens to be gay himself. Rauch wrote an article pertaining to the sanctity of marriage. In it, he comes to the conclusion that gay marriage fits the definition and standards of regular marriage. However, Mr. Caldwell, who wrote the article that responds to Rauch's, completely disagrees with Caldwell's conclusion, and how he came to his overall reasonings. I mostly agree with Mr. Caldwell, in that legalizing gay marriage would not solve the problems that gays face in America. There are numerous logical ideas against this information, including lowering standards as opposed to meeting them and changing a law that many consider sacred (this could make quite a few people angry).
Rauch comes to the conclusion that once gay marriage is legalized, that gay citizens in America will be "seen in a new light." He argues that society does not accept homosexuals because they do not conform with society's ideals and traditions. One of these prominent traditions includes marriage. Because homosexuals cannot marry, he argues, they are seen as adulterous and threatening to the community. This idea seems to be a bit nieve. Allowing marraige does not make homosexual couples more "acceptable" in society than before. Caldwell argues that if marriage is altered to fit the desires of homosexuals, that marriage will no longer be a norm in society. The concept of marriage would lose its moral luster, and their would be no new push to accept gay couples, because gay marriage would still be a new idea. (and) New ideas are often not accepted at first, or possibly even at all. There is a method of building up to do so, and going from nothing to marriage is a large step. Quite possible there is a step inbetween no legal tie and marriage.
Also, legalizing gay marriage would create the same kind of problematic opportunity for polygamists. If made legal, not only would it fail to change the unfavorable opinion of homosexuality in America, but it would give polygamists a reason to shout for change as well. Sub-common religions like Mormonism would demand that multiple marriages to the same partner be legal. Once the definition of marriage is altered for a minority group, a majority of Americans would be upset. Also, once altered, the legalities involved with marriage would change altogether, because it only takes one (precedent) case to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for decades. Marriage would not make any difference to society's acceptance of gays (however, I'm not saying gays wouldn't enjoy the right to get married).
In conclusion, Caldwell was right in that Roush failed to realize that changing a normality in society to fit a new idea, is altering the normality as society knows it. Upon changing the idea, it is no more normal and holds less weight within the socially acceptable boundaries in America. It would make no difference to most of America (Roush's reasonings were off).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
