Our final portfolio project, a persuasive essay, will be assigned during writing conferences this Friday. The Reflective Letter required to open the portfolio will be assigned and explained in class 11/20.
Project 3: Writing in the Public Forum
Purpose:
To strengthen practices for assessing audience and using analysis to identify the form, focus, and rhetorical approach for your writing; to explore and reflect on practices for developing arguments; to practice the effective integration of information from other authors/texts to support your argument; and to gain experience writing for real-world audiences.
Description of the assignment:
Develop a position on a controversial issue (we will brainstorm a list of acceptable topics in class). Specifically you must take a position with respect to a specific statement on your issue put forward by government, business or some other social organization. In other words - your argument must similar to Dr. King's letter in that it must be a reply to and/or extend of an already stated position regarding your topic.
As you develop your position, you will need to make specific references to what others have argued, and you will need to refer to appropriate authorities (facts, experts, research, etc) to support your argument. You will set forward your position as a traditional persuasive essay (similar to the writing by King).
After writing your persuasive essay, you will re-cast your argument as a letter to your congressman, a letter to the editor, a position statement for your school board, or some other public venue. This will be presented in our final class on December 18, 2009.
Criteria for Essay:
1) a clear statement of your position;
2) detailed, complex presentation of issues affecting your position (with specific references to the positions argued by various "sides");
3) a series of logical claims or points to justify your position;
4) references from at least 3 sources;
5) overt connections between claims and support; ;
6) presentation and refutation of relevant counterarguments (replies to the other side's arguments);
7) clear, logical organization including effective use of paragraphing;
8) effective use of paraphrasing and quotation;
9) sentences relatively free from errors.
Writing process must demonstrate:
1) a variety of techniques for invention and revision;
2) increased quality of writing and ideas throughout the revision process;
3) thoughtful analysis of how and what to revise in successive drafts.
Length and form
Essay: MLA format (no title page). Word processed. 1000 words.
Letter: a form suitable for publication as a "letter to the editor" or as a letter to a legislator, administrator, city official, etc. Under 200 words.
Due Dates: Topics & preliminary theses--11/6; Draft 1--11/13; Draft 2--11/20; Final draft—11/27;
Letter presentation—12/18.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
FYI--Grading Policies and Standards from Student Information Sheet
The following information is from the 2009-10 College Composition Student Information Sheet and is provided here as a guideline to follow as you begin to prepare your pieces for your portfolio.
Grading Policies
Generally, writing assignments are evaluated according to a) clarity of purpose; b) appropriateness to audience; c) clarity of focus; d) quality of development; e) effectiveness of organization; f) degree of fluency; g) stylistic skill demonstrated through word choice (diction) and sentence structure (syntax); and h) correctness of mechanics (grammar, spelling, punctuation).
A Excellent fulfillment of the assignments requirements; original substantive content; effective organization and logical development; correct mechanics; clear effective diction and syntax; fluent use of language; correct documentation (when applicable).
B Above average fulfillment of the assignments requirements; thorough and interesting content; good organization; correct mechanics; effective diction and syntax; fluent use of language; correct documentation (when applicable).
C Fulfills basic requirements of the assignment; some solid content; adequate organization; no major mechanical errors; no major documentation errors.
D Does not fulfill basic requirements of the assignment; vague content; ineffective organization; major mechanical errors; significant errors in documentation.
F Does not fulfill basic requirements of the assignment; little content; minimal form; major, serious repeated mechanical errors; violations of the Academic Integrity Policy.
Grading Policies
Generally, writing assignments are evaluated according to a) clarity of purpose; b) appropriateness to audience; c) clarity of focus; d) quality of development; e) effectiveness of organization; f) degree of fluency; g) stylistic skill demonstrated through word choice (diction) and sentence structure (syntax); and h) correctness of mechanics (grammar, spelling, punctuation).
A Excellent fulfillment of the assignments requirements; original substantive content; effective organization and logical development; correct mechanics; clear effective diction and syntax; fluent use of language; correct documentation (when applicable).
B Above average fulfillment of the assignments requirements; thorough and interesting content; good organization; correct mechanics; effective diction and syntax; fluent use of language; correct documentation (when applicable).
C Fulfills basic requirements of the assignment; some solid content; adequate organization; no major mechanical errors; no major documentation errors.
D Does not fulfill basic requirements of the assignment; vague content; ineffective organization; major mechanical errors; significant errors in documentation.
F Does not fulfill basic requirements of the assignment; little content; minimal form; major, serious repeated mechanical errors; violations of the Academic Integrity Policy.
Friday, October 23, 2009
10/23/09--Homecoming Weekend!
Reminder: Class for Friday October 30th will begin at 6:00 for pre-scheduled individual writing conferences until approximately 8 p.m. After that time I will be available in 307 for additional help until about 9:15 p.m or until all questions are addressed.
Tonight:
Tonight:
- We covered material on the handout included below in a previous post.
- Met in small groups to participate in a writing workshop to work on our thesis statements for Project II.
- Worked on sentence fluency and rhythm by practicing combining sentences using many smaller sentences.
- Examined and discussed questions I consider in assessment and questions for students to consider as they complete their drafts.
- Explored a strategy to use to highlight areas of strength and weakness on the upcoming Project II draft conferences next week.
Homework:
- Project II drafts due No Later than 5p.m. Thursday October 29th! This will give me time to assess and make notes on your drafts before our conferences on Friday.
- Bring your own copy of Project II draft with X's and squiggly lines as outlined in the handout distributed this evening.
Conference Schedule:
- 6:00--David Garcia
- 6:10--Allison C.
- 6:20--David L.
- 6:30--Sam G.
- 6:40--Tina V.
- 6:50--Nilaja S.
- 7:00--Tim T.
- 7:10--Abdulla Q.
- 7:20--Aliza J.
- 7:30--Briama K.
- 7:40--Omari K.
- 7:50--David Giordano
- 8:00--Joey M.
- 8:10-9:15 or so--Open conference/writing time.
Helpful information discussed in tonight's class 10/23/09
More Specifics on Writing
English Comp 1030/35-Prof. Kiefer
October 23, 2009
Thesis
• The thesis refers to the message, or to the experience that is filtered, narrowed and interpreted by the writer.
• This is the point, the message, or what is being said in the writing.
• Its structure reflects the order we impose on our experiences in shaping what we want to say.
Examples to consider
• If the following sentence occurs in the opening paragraph, what might the writer do to fulfill expectation?
– “People have speculated about the nature of language for a long time.”
• The writer should give examples of the “speculations” and arrange them chronologically because “for a long time” implies a historical context.
Paid political advertising is expensive, deceptive and ineffective in helping to educate voters.
• Expectations are a of a three part argument treating the expense, the deceptive tactics and the ineffectiveness of paid political ads in that order.
– Strategies for different methods of development:
• Statistics on expense
• Examples of deceptive tactics.
• Reasons that the writers believe these are deceptive.
“There are many differences between high school and college.”
• This is a throw away sentence. It is self-evident and that elicits the response, “so what?”
• This would be better if the writer engaged the text more enthusiastically:
– if we knew how many points of contrast we would find.
– what areas of high school and college life we would be reading about
– Why the differences are important.
How can we use this in Analysis?
• Your analysis reveals how writers construct their claims, define their assumptions, examines what kinds of evidence they use and where they place it to signal important subtopics.
Blocking material- a way to organize
• This differs from an outline:
– Draw a picture of what you propose to write guided by questions of your material, audience and purpose.
– Determine how many blocks it will take you to do what you want to do by developing a plan to logically organize your material.
Sentence Combining: Developing an eye and ear for prose rhythms.
• Try combing these sentences into one sentence or more with a pleasing rhythm that allows the reader to remain focused on the main idea:
– The canary flew out the window. The canary is yellow.
– My friends and I enjoy something. We race our bicycles around the paths in the park. Our bicycles are lightweight. Our bicycles are ten-speed. The paths are narrow. The paths are winding.
– The national debt concerns Americans. The national debt grows five hundred dollars every second. The national debt totals nearly six trillion dollars.
FYI--Questions I ask while I assess a paper (in addition to whether the requirements were fulfilled.)
• Was the student committed to the assignment?
• What did the student intend to do? What was the purpose of the writing?
• How did the writer define the audience for the piece?
• How thoroughly did the student probe the subject?
• How are the paragraphs arranged?
• What are the most frequent types of sentences?
• What patterns of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and usage does the paper contain? In what contexts do the errors appear? What makes them similar?
Questions to ask before submitting a paper:
• How much time did I spend on this paper?
• After the first evaluation, what did I try to improve or experiments with on this paper? How successful was I? If I had questions about what I was trying to do what are they?
• What are the strengths of my paper? (Place a squiggly line beside the passages you feel are very good.)
• What are the weaknesses, if any, of my paper? (Place an X beside passages you would like me to help you with or would like to revise. Place an X over punctuation, spelling usage where you need help or clarification.)
• What one thing will I do to improve my next piece of writing?
• What grade would I give myself on this composition?
Resource: Lindeman, Erika, A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers, 4th ed., Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2001
English Comp 1030/35-Prof. Kiefer
October 23, 2009
Thesis
• The thesis refers to the message, or to the experience that is filtered, narrowed and interpreted by the writer.
• This is the point, the message, or what is being said in the writing.
• Its structure reflects the order we impose on our experiences in shaping what we want to say.
Examples to consider
• If the following sentence occurs in the opening paragraph, what might the writer do to fulfill expectation?
– “People have speculated about the nature of language for a long time.”
• The writer should give examples of the “speculations” and arrange them chronologically because “for a long time” implies a historical context.
Paid political advertising is expensive, deceptive and ineffective in helping to educate voters.
• Expectations are a of a three part argument treating the expense, the deceptive tactics and the ineffectiveness of paid political ads in that order.
– Strategies for different methods of development:
• Statistics on expense
• Examples of deceptive tactics.
• Reasons that the writers believe these are deceptive.
“There are many differences between high school and college.”
• This is a throw away sentence. It is self-evident and that elicits the response, “so what?”
• This would be better if the writer engaged the text more enthusiastically:
– if we knew how many points of contrast we would find.
– what areas of high school and college life we would be reading about
– Why the differences are important.
How can we use this in Analysis?
• Your analysis reveals how writers construct their claims, define their assumptions, examines what kinds of evidence they use and where they place it to signal important subtopics.
Blocking material- a way to organize
• This differs from an outline:
– Draw a picture of what you propose to write guided by questions of your material, audience and purpose.
– Determine how many blocks it will take you to do what you want to do by developing a plan to logically organize your material.
Sentence Combining: Developing an eye and ear for prose rhythms.
• Try combing these sentences into one sentence or more with a pleasing rhythm that allows the reader to remain focused on the main idea:
– The canary flew out the window. The canary is yellow.
– My friends and I enjoy something. We race our bicycles around the paths in the park. Our bicycles are lightweight. Our bicycles are ten-speed. The paths are narrow. The paths are winding.
– The national debt concerns Americans. The national debt grows five hundred dollars every second. The national debt totals nearly six trillion dollars.
FYI--Questions I ask while I assess a paper (in addition to whether the requirements were fulfilled.)
• Was the student committed to the assignment?
• What did the student intend to do? What was the purpose of the writing?
• How did the writer define the audience for the piece?
• How thoroughly did the student probe the subject?
• How are the paragraphs arranged?
• What are the most frequent types of sentences?
• What patterns of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and usage does the paper contain? In what contexts do the errors appear? What makes them similar?
Questions to ask before submitting a paper:
• How much time did I spend on this paper?
• After the first evaluation, what did I try to improve or experiments with on this paper? How successful was I? If I had questions about what I was trying to do what are they?
• What are the strengths of my paper? (Place a squiggly line beside the passages you feel are very good.)
• What are the weaknesses, if any, of my paper? (Place an X beside passages you would like me to help you with or would like to revise. Place an X over punctuation, spelling usage where you need help or clarification.)
• What one thing will I do to improve my next piece of writing?
• What grade would I give myself on this composition?
Resource: Lindeman, Erika, A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers, 4th ed., Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2001
Sunday, October 18, 2009
October 16--An evening with a Nor'easter blowing
Re-cap of tonight:
- Review of ethos, logos and pathos.
- Whole group discussion of Birmingham Jail and the rhetorical devices used.
- Meta-write/e-mail about how each student's writing is progressing, your areas of needs and what genre you'd most like to explore with your own writing.
- Time to discuss assessments from returned Project I.
- Writing time for Project II.
Homework this week:
- Read--Quindlan's A New Look....(pg. 773)
- Write Project II draft 1, 2-4 pages min.
- Write a 1-2 page response on either Birmingham Jail OR Quindlan's article.
Friday, October 9, 2009
October 9 --Week Six
We explored the following areas tonight:
- Presented/discussed/considered the elements of argument from an academic perspective
- Viewed Powerpoint and distributed handout on argument and persuasive techniques
- Analyzed our response papers individually
- Met in small writing groups to read and discuss Crimes and response papers to Crimes
- Selected our topics for Project II
Homework due next Friday: ***Change from schedule!!!!
- Read King's Birmingham Jail. Take notes and briefly analyze five examples of persuasive techniques used. Bring this analysis with you for class discussion. No need to submit via e-mail.
- Due next Friday: Begin first draft of Project II--2 pages
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Reminders and topics from 10/20/09
Tonight:
- We learned and used Google Docs--Thank you Shelsie!
- Presentation on rhetoric, purpose, audience, focus and developing writing.
- Highlighted portions of Crimes Against Humanity for response papers.
- Introduced and discussed perameters and deadlines for Project II (listed in a post below.)
- Worked on Project I drafts individually and in conferences.
Homework:
- Complete final draft of Project I. Due 10/9/09 at 5 p.m.
- Read Crimes Against Humanity.
- Write a response paper, 1-2 pages, on Crimes.
- Consider topics and articles for Project II.
Brief synopsis of material from class 10/02/09
Rhetoric
• The study of the elements as or style used in writing or speaking. The art of using language effectively. Rhetoric also has a negative connotation of empty or pretentious language meant to waffle, stall or even deceive.
• Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to see what is persuasive in all circumstances through the use of logos, ethos or pathos. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
• Logos: reason
• Ethos: character or fundamental values of a people
• Pathos: a quality arousing feelings of sympathy, pity, tenderness or sorrow.
• We use different genres for our rhetoric.
Purpose
• Purpose is a writer's reason for trying to convey a particular idea. (Thesis) about a subject to a particular audience of readers. Though it may emerge gradually throughout a piece of writing, in the end the purpose should govern every aspect of it.
Important questions to consider
• Why is the communication happening?
• What’s the point of the communication?
How choosing an audience affects the purpose
• If you don't have a particular intended audience in mind, or if you say that your essay is for "everybody" or "society" or "people interested in this topic," your writing will tend to be as general as your intention. Your real purpose will be (or seem to be) turning in an assignment to the teacher (and the teacher won't be a happy reader). On the other hand, if you see yourself as addressing a real reader, you will have a much clearer understanding of your purpose, and your reader will feel more involved.
How does choosing an audience affect the strategy (style, support, tone, vocabulary)?
• Knowing the intended audience, then, enables you to ask questions and make choices rather than following rules. You will also have to decide how much support to give for a point.
• The real question is "how much support does the intended audience need?" Real-world writers think in these terms, not in terms of length or number of sources.
What does your audience believe?
• Although you may belong to the same general group as your intended readers, it's often a mistake to assume that your readers already agree with you or knows the material you're trying to convey. If the readers agree totally with you, why do they need to read your statement? But if you assume that your readers are either uncommitted or leaning to the other side, then you will know from the start what and why to argue your point.
Developing Focus in Writing
• To focus your writing, you'll need to know how to narrow your focus, so you don't overwhelm your readers with unnecessary information. Knowing who your readers are and why you are writing will help you stay focused.
• Wat focus is really all about—is informally known as sticking to the point.
• Sticking to the point involves having a clear idea of what you want to write and how you want to write about your topic. While you write, you'll want to keep in mind your supporting details to help your readers better understand your main point. http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/processes/focus/pop5b.cfm
• The biggest conceptual shift in most students is having too broad of a statement and literally finding everything they ever knew about this topic and dumping it into a paper. They need to consider what they write a pro-active document: a document that's going to be used by a specified audience for a specified reason about a specific area of that broader topic.
• Most academic writing requires a narrow focus because it's easier to move from that into the specific supporting detail highly valued in the academic community.
• The study of the elements as or style used in writing or speaking. The art of using language effectively. Rhetoric also has a negative connotation of empty or pretentious language meant to waffle, stall or even deceive.
• Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to see what is persuasive in all circumstances through the use of logos, ethos or pathos. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
• Logos: reason
• Ethos: character or fundamental values of a people
• Pathos: a quality arousing feelings of sympathy, pity, tenderness or sorrow.
• We use different genres for our rhetoric.
Purpose
• Purpose is a writer's reason for trying to convey a particular idea. (Thesis) about a subject to a particular audience of readers. Though it may emerge gradually throughout a piece of writing, in the end the purpose should govern every aspect of it.
Important questions to consider
• Why is the communication happening?
• What’s the point of the communication?
How choosing an audience affects the purpose
• If you don't have a particular intended audience in mind, or if you say that your essay is for "everybody" or "society" or "people interested in this topic," your writing will tend to be as general as your intention. Your real purpose will be (or seem to be) turning in an assignment to the teacher (and the teacher won't be a happy reader). On the other hand, if you see yourself as addressing a real reader, you will have a much clearer understanding of your purpose, and your reader will feel more involved.
How does choosing an audience affect the strategy (style, support, tone, vocabulary)?
• Knowing the intended audience, then, enables you to ask questions and make choices rather than following rules. You will also have to decide how much support to give for a point.
• The real question is "how much support does the intended audience need?" Real-world writers think in these terms, not in terms of length or number of sources.
What does your audience believe?
• Although you may belong to the same general group as your intended readers, it's often a mistake to assume that your readers already agree with you or knows the material you're trying to convey. If the readers agree totally with you, why do they need to read your statement? But if you assume that your readers are either uncommitted or leaning to the other side, then you will know from the start what and why to argue your point.
Developing Focus in Writing
• To focus your writing, you'll need to know how to narrow your focus, so you don't overwhelm your readers with unnecessary information. Knowing who your readers are and why you are writing will help you stay focused.
• Wat focus is really all about—is informally known as sticking to the point.
• Sticking to the point involves having a clear idea of what you want to write and how you want to write about your topic. While you write, you'll want to keep in mind your supporting details to help your readers better understand your main point. http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/processes/focus/pop5b.cfm
• The biggest conceptual shift in most students is having too broad of a statement and literally finding everything they ever knew about this topic and dumping it into a paper. They need to consider what they write a pro-active document: a document that's going to be used by a specified audience for a specified reason about a specific area of that broader topic.
• Most academic writing requires a narrow focus because it's easier to move from that into the specific supporting detail highly valued in the academic community.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Analyzing Opinion Pieces--Project II
Analyzing Opinion Pieces
Our society debates multiple issues: the limits of free speech, the definition of life, health care, the most responsible plan for the economy, and numerous others. Few of these debates have only two sides. Most of them, however, affect how we live, which makes them interesting and important.
Many of these debates occur through writing, particularly via opinion pieces published in newspapers, magazines, and blogs. In order to be active, responsible citizens, people must be able to navigate these debates, figuring out where different writers stand and determining the major elements of their arguments. This assignment will help you gain this critical skill.
Task:
Below are the topics of several recent “Today’s Debate” columns in USA Today. “Today’s Debate” is a section of the editorial page that presents two columns arguing different positions on the same issue. Copies of all these articles are on our class blog at http://kiefersenglishcomp.blogspot.com
Same-sex Marriage—Proposition 8
Arms-Control—Russia and treaties
Middle East Politics—Trouble in Gaza
NFL—Football Dangers
Balancing State Budgets with Gambling
Select one pair of articles. Write an essay that compares and/or contrasts the strategies the authors use to construct their arguments, focusing on their use of logos, pathos, and ethos. You do not have to discuss all three strategies in your essay, but you will need to focus on a point of similarity and/or contrast between the articles.
Assume you are writing for the same audience as your response essays: an Honors high-school English class focusing on popular culture.
Purposes:
This assignment builds on the analytical, critical reading, and critical thinking skills we practiced with the last response essay, applying them to written texts. This essay will also introduce you to some of the common moves used to construct persuasive arguments, moves you can apply in your next major essay.
Hints:
This assignment is intended to help you learn how to break the articles apart, identify the strategies used to create them, and determine how those strategies further the writer’s purpose for his or her chosen audience. Use the same strategies for analysis that we practiced in class.
For this assignment, I want your analysis to emphasize the three major appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. You must use one or all of these terms correctly in your essay.
Assume that your audience has read the articles. As a result, you do not have to spend much time or detail summarizing them. A sentence or two giving the main points should be enough. However, you must draw on specific evidence from the articles to support your points. This means you should paraphrase and quote selectively.
I am willing to let you write about another set of articles that are not included in our textbook or USA Today . However, you must provide me the copy of the articles, and I must give you written permission. If you do not meet either of these criteria, your essay will not be accepted, and you will lose points from your portfolio.
Length: three pages (approximately 750 words)
Evaluation Criteria: I will use the criteria on the College Composition Student Information Sheet to evaluate your essay. You will earn a what-if grade for this assignment. You can also choose to revise it for your portfolio.
Assignment Steps (dates tentative):
· Oct. 2: Assignment distributed
· Oct. 9: Whole-class and group practice on text analysis. Select articles.
· Oct. 16: Invention work.
· Oct. 23: Catch-up/review as needed. Time to draft. Conferences: bring your rough draft for feedback.
· Oct. 30: Revision work on essay based on rough drafts. Prepare for workshop.
· Nov. 6: Deadline draft due by 5:00 p.m. today. Submit via gotprofkiefer@gmail.com email.
Our society debates multiple issues: the limits of free speech, the definition of life, health care, the most responsible plan for the economy, and numerous others. Few of these debates have only two sides. Most of them, however, affect how we live, which makes them interesting and important.
Many of these debates occur through writing, particularly via opinion pieces published in newspapers, magazines, and blogs. In order to be active, responsible citizens, people must be able to navigate these debates, figuring out where different writers stand and determining the major elements of their arguments. This assignment will help you gain this critical skill.
Task:
Below are the topics of several recent “Today’s Debate” columns in USA Today. “Today’s Debate” is a section of the editorial page that presents two columns arguing different positions on the same issue. Copies of all these articles are on our class blog at http://kiefersenglishcomp.blogspot.com
Same-sex Marriage—Proposition 8
Arms-Control—Russia and treaties
Middle East Politics—Trouble in Gaza
NFL—Football Dangers
Balancing State Budgets with Gambling
Select one pair of articles. Write an essay that compares and/or contrasts the strategies the authors use to construct their arguments, focusing on their use of logos, pathos, and ethos. You do not have to discuss all three strategies in your essay, but you will need to focus on a point of similarity and/or contrast between the articles.
Assume you are writing for the same audience as your response essays: an Honors high-school English class focusing on popular culture.
Purposes:
This assignment builds on the analytical, critical reading, and critical thinking skills we practiced with the last response essay, applying them to written texts. This essay will also introduce you to some of the common moves used to construct persuasive arguments, moves you can apply in your next major essay.
Hints:
This assignment is intended to help you learn how to break the articles apart, identify the strategies used to create them, and determine how those strategies further the writer’s purpose for his or her chosen audience. Use the same strategies for analysis that we practiced in class.
For this assignment, I want your analysis to emphasize the three major appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. You must use one or all of these terms correctly in your essay.
Assume that your audience has read the articles. As a result, you do not have to spend much time or detail summarizing them. A sentence or two giving the main points should be enough. However, you must draw on specific evidence from the articles to support your points. This means you should paraphrase and quote selectively.
I am willing to let you write about another set of articles that are not included in our textbook or USA Today . However, you must provide me the copy of the articles, and I must give you written permission. If you do not meet either of these criteria, your essay will not be accepted, and you will lose points from your portfolio.
Length: three pages (approximately 750 words)
Evaluation Criteria: I will use the criteria on the College Composition Student Information Sheet to evaluate your essay. You will earn a what-if grade for this assignment. You can also choose to revise it for your portfolio.
Assignment Steps (dates tentative):
· Oct. 2: Assignment distributed
· Oct. 9: Whole-class and group practice on text analysis. Select articles.
· Oct. 16: Invention work.
· Oct. 23: Catch-up/review as needed. Time to draft. Conferences: bring your rough draft for feedback.
· Oct. 30: Revision work on essay based on rough drafts. Prepare for workshop.
· Nov. 6: Deadline draft due by 5:00 p.m. today. Submit via gotprofkiefer@gmail.com email.
"Today's Debate" article on balancing budgets with gambling
Our view on balancing budgets: States bet on a bad hand
Expanding legalized gambling doesn’t guarantee easy money.
As state governments struggle to cope with the worst recession in decades, the peddlers of something-for-nothing politics are touting a familiar magic potion to resolve financial woes: more legalized gambling.
From Hawaii to Maine, state capitals are awash in proposals for new lotteries, slot-machine parlors, video gambling and full-fledged casinos — all in pursuit of mega-million-dollar jackpots that would help states balance their budgets without belt-tightening or tax hikes.
According to recent surveys, serious proposals to seek revenue from new or expanded gambling operations are percolating this winter in at least a third of the states.
There's just one problem: The most recent evidence says the promised riches won't materialize. A few examples:
• Kansas authorized state casinos in 2007 on the notion that $200 million could be raised each year for debt reduction, capital improvements and property tax relief. Nearly two years later, private casino developers have pulled out of three of the four proposed casino sites, fearing that there's little money to be made in today's down economy.
• Illinois had planned on netting $575 million from the sale of a long-dormant casino license but had to settle for a bid barely one-fifth that size — $125 million — plus a promise of further payments over the next 30 years, but no money in time to help the state's current budget crisis. Meanwhile, tax revenue from existing casinos was off 32% in December compared with the previous year.
• Ohio, which was looking for $292 million in sales for the first year of a new Keno game, has grossed only $46 million.
• Maryland's hopes for $660 million in revenue from new slot machines took a heavy hit last week when only one of six proposed sites for the new gambling centers drew bids. The state Senate president said the bidding process is in "disarray."
• California, which was looking to a boom in tribal casinos as an important source of new revenue, is finding casinos are in trouble, abandoning expansion plans and warning of a serious drop in business.
• In Rhode Island, a glitzy slots palace that the state was counting on for $250 million a year is coming up way short, defaulting on its loans and threatened with bankruptcy. Desperate state politicians are talking of buying out the private owners to keep the shaky facility running.
Gambling, obviously, is not immune to the economic recession, as some in this industry have long claimed. While lottery sales are holding up, casino revenue nationwide appear to be declining.
So like the gamblers who are staying home, state legislators would be wise to defer their dreams of a sudden, life-altering payoff. Even with the federal stimulus bill about to rain down money from Washington, balancing state budgets will require tough choices between raising taxes and cutting services. The record shows that counting on gambling revenue is anything but a sure bet.
Opposing view: States deserve a cut
By Greg Stumbo
On the first Saturday of each May, all eyes turn to the Kentucky Derby to watch what has rightfully been called "The Most Exciting Two Minutes in Sports."
It's always a proud moment for Kentucky and its unparalleled horse industry, no matter who wins.
But in recent years, that industry — and the $4 billion economic impact it has on our economy — has suffered because other states have found they can lure it away with larger purses at the tracks and bigger tax incentives on the farm, all funded by expanded gaming revenue.
If Kentucky wants to keep its competitive edge, I believe it has no choice but to level the playing field by joining them. Other states might have different reasons for considering this option, but the bottom line is protecting our bottom line.
Clearly, Americans like their games of chance. They spend tens of billions of dollars each year in cities like Las Vegas and on everything from the lottery and bingo to March Madness office pools. Gaming easily dwarfs all other forms of entertainment.
Over the past 45 years, ever since New Hampshire established the nation's first modern lottery, states have found that their citizens want these types of games. All but two, Utah and Hawaii, now offer at least one legal form of wagering. We can long argue whether this is a positive trend, but voters have shown no inclination to reverse it.
It might indeed be unwise to rely on gaming revenue for critical state services, but that does not mean we should leave all the money on the table.
If a state's citizens are going to play, and they are, then the home state should benefit, not those that surround it.
State Rep. Greg Stumbo, a Democrat from Prestonsburg, is speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives.
Expanding legalized gambling doesn’t guarantee easy money.
As state governments struggle to cope with the worst recession in decades, the peddlers of something-for-nothing politics are touting a familiar magic potion to resolve financial woes: more legalized gambling.
From Hawaii to Maine, state capitals are awash in proposals for new lotteries, slot-machine parlors, video gambling and full-fledged casinos — all in pursuit of mega-million-dollar jackpots that would help states balance their budgets without belt-tightening or tax hikes.
According to recent surveys, serious proposals to seek revenue from new or expanded gambling operations are percolating this winter in at least a third of the states.
There's just one problem: The most recent evidence says the promised riches won't materialize. A few examples:
• Kansas authorized state casinos in 2007 on the notion that $200 million could be raised each year for debt reduction, capital improvements and property tax relief. Nearly two years later, private casino developers have pulled out of three of the four proposed casino sites, fearing that there's little money to be made in today's down economy.
• Illinois had planned on netting $575 million from the sale of a long-dormant casino license but had to settle for a bid barely one-fifth that size — $125 million — plus a promise of further payments over the next 30 years, but no money in time to help the state's current budget crisis. Meanwhile, tax revenue from existing casinos was off 32% in December compared with the previous year.
• Ohio, which was looking for $292 million in sales for the first year of a new Keno game, has grossed only $46 million.
• Maryland's hopes for $660 million in revenue from new slot machines took a heavy hit last week when only one of six proposed sites for the new gambling centers drew bids. The state Senate president said the bidding process is in "disarray."
• California, which was looking to a boom in tribal casinos as an important source of new revenue, is finding casinos are in trouble, abandoning expansion plans and warning of a serious drop in business.
• In Rhode Island, a glitzy slots palace that the state was counting on for $250 million a year is coming up way short, defaulting on its loans and threatened with bankruptcy. Desperate state politicians are talking of buying out the private owners to keep the shaky facility running.
Gambling, obviously, is not immune to the economic recession, as some in this industry have long claimed. While lottery sales are holding up, casino revenue nationwide appear to be declining.
So like the gamblers who are staying home, state legislators would be wise to defer their dreams of a sudden, life-altering payoff. Even with the federal stimulus bill about to rain down money from Washington, balancing state budgets will require tough choices between raising taxes and cutting services. The record shows that counting on gambling revenue is anything but a sure bet.
Opposing view: States deserve a cut
By Greg Stumbo
On the first Saturday of each May, all eyes turn to the Kentucky Derby to watch what has rightfully been called "The Most Exciting Two Minutes in Sports."
It's always a proud moment for Kentucky and its unparalleled horse industry, no matter who wins.
But in recent years, that industry — and the $4 billion economic impact it has on our economy — has suffered because other states have found they can lure it away with larger purses at the tracks and bigger tax incentives on the farm, all funded by expanded gaming revenue.
If Kentucky wants to keep its competitive edge, I believe it has no choice but to level the playing field by joining them. Other states might have different reasons for considering this option, but the bottom line is protecting our bottom line.
Clearly, Americans like their games of chance. They spend tens of billions of dollars each year in cities like Las Vegas and on everything from the lottery and bingo to March Madness office pools. Gaming easily dwarfs all other forms of entertainment.
Over the past 45 years, ever since New Hampshire established the nation's first modern lottery, states have found that their citizens want these types of games. All but two, Utah and Hawaii, now offer at least one legal form of wagering. We can long argue whether this is a positive trend, but voters have shown no inclination to reverse it.
It might indeed be unwise to rely on gaming revenue for critical state services, but that does not mean we should leave all the money on the table.
If a state's citizens are going to play, and they are, then the home state should benefit, not those that surround it.
State Rep. Greg Stumbo, a Democrat from Prestonsburg, is speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives.
"Today's Debate" articles on the Middle East-January 2009
Our view on the Middle East: Israel’s tactics in Gaza invite Palestinian backlash
Efforts to crush Hamas prompt Arab street to rally behind it.
Israel's bloody 11-day incursion into Gaza appears to have two goals, one entirely justified and one based on wishful thinking.
The first is simply to stop the rocket attacks that have been coming from Gaza, controlled by the militant group Hamas, into Israel. For this, Israel has every right, much as the U.S. would if Mexicans sworn to the destruction of America were firing missiles from Juarez into El Paso.
The second, more expansive goal is to try to smash Hamas and turn the Palestinian masses against the group. As desirable as this might be given Hamas' record of terrorism, decades of Middle East conflict provide scant evidence that Israel can achieve this objective by military means.
(Gaza border: Smoke rises from Israel’s Jan. 6 attack on Hamas / David Silverman, Getty Images)
Decades of punishments — from assassinations to mass imprisonments to confiscation of Palestinians' property and curtailment of their rights — have only engendered more support for Palestinian leaders. It's a matter of human nature, and the Israel's latest offensive appears to be producing more of the same. Tuesday's deaths of dozens of Palestinians sheltering at a United Nations school are likely to intensify the anti-Israeli backlash.
The lesson is that Israel needs to step back and figure out how to prevent the same cycle from repeating without end: Israel punishing innocent Palestinians in response to terrorism, inevitably stirring up more radicalization, resentment and retaliation.
Popular support for terrorism typically ends when people see a future for themselves. The Irish Republican Army's horrific bombings petered out as people on both sides in Northern Ireland got tired of violence and were steered into a credible political process. The Palestinians' own tangled history with Israel tells a similar tale.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization was once as violent and as bent on Israel's destruction as Hamas is today (though without Hamas' radical Islamic fervor). But the PLO came to accept Israel's right to exist under the Oslo Peace Accord signed in 1994, which promised Palestinians a homeland.
The PLO's iconic leader, Yasser Arafat, ultimately reneged on a final peace deal with Israel. But the framework of a two-state solution remains much as it was outlined in the last days of the Clinton presidency eight years ago.
After Arafat died in 2004, Palestinians became disenchanted with his Fatah successors because of corruption that kept them mired in poverty and without that all-important path to a better life. Hamas won elections in 2006 because it promised a way forward, lavished social services and benefits on Palestinians and vowed to end corruption. But it remained committed to terrorism.
Israel's efforts to split Palestinians from Hamas, however, have long lacked the needed carrots to match its sticks. It has particularly failed to build up Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose government controls the larger Palestinian territory in the West Bank and who wants to be a constructive alternative.
Israel deserves to be safe from Hamas rockets. But it can't ensure lasting security by going after tactical successes likely to radicalize Palestinians over the long term.
Posted at 12:22 AM/ET, January 07, 2009 in Foreign Affairs - Middle East - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial
Opposing view: Israel's inalienable right
Efforts to crush Hamas prompt Arab street to rally behind it.
By Jonathan Peled
Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself and its citizens. While America and Europe are engaged in wars thousands of miles away from their soil, we are entrenched in the front lines of the West's war on terror.
In 2005, Israel voluntarily disengaged from Gaza to create an opportunity for peace, giving Palestinians a chance at self governance and economic prosperity. We worked closely with the U.S. and the international community to prop up Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with economic and diplomatic support.
Unfortunately, Israel's withdrawal was soon followed by Hamas' takeover of Gaza. This Iranian-backed terrorist organization has proven time and again to adamantly oppose peace and coexistence. Each Israeli peace overture has been met with terror. In the past three years, more than 6,000 rockets and mortars have fallen on Israel.
Hamas has brought this war onto itself and fights in the most repugnant and cynical way imaginable. They regularly exploit their own people by turning them into human shields and using schools, mosques and population centers as launch pads for attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers. These barbaric tactics, which violate international humanitarian law, drastically increase the human toll on all sides.
Israel always prefers a political solution to a military one, but sometimes diplomacy is not possible without the deployment of legitimate force. Israel's counter-terrorism operation will continue until Hamas' capability to attack Israeli civilians is minimized and the status quo of constant rocket fire ends, laying the foundation for a durable and sustainable arrangement.
Previous lulls in violence have been viewed by Israel as an opportunity to build peace, but used by Hamas as an opportunity to build rockets and to smuggle in sophisticated weapons. We will not allow our wish for quiet in the short term to enable our destruction in the long term. Hamas cannot be allowed to regroup, rearm and rebuild the smuggling tunnels and terror infrastructure we are destroying.
Eliminating the Hamas obstacle is the only realistic way to advance the peace process and to achieve peace through a two-state solution. We have already made substantial progress with the Palestinian Authority the Palestinian people's legitimate representative and have seen tangible proof that peace is attainable. We are determined not to allow Hamas' terror to derail the process.
Jonathan Peled is the Israeli embassy's spokesman in Washington.
Efforts to crush Hamas prompt Arab street to rally behind it.
Israel's bloody 11-day incursion into Gaza appears to have two goals, one entirely justified and one based on wishful thinking.
The first is simply to stop the rocket attacks that have been coming from Gaza, controlled by the militant group Hamas, into Israel. For this, Israel has every right, much as the U.S. would if Mexicans sworn to the destruction of America were firing missiles from Juarez into El Paso.
The second, more expansive goal is to try to smash Hamas and turn the Palestinian masses against the group. As desirable as this might be given Hamas' record of terrorism, decades of Middle East conflict provide scant evidence that Israel can achieve this objective by military means.
(Gaza border: Smoke rises from Israel’s Jan. 6 attack on Hamas / David Silverman, Getty Images)
Decades of punishments — from assassinations to mass imprisonments to confiscation of Palestinians' property and curtailment of their rights — have only engendered more support for Palestinian leaders. It's a matter of human nature, and the Israel's latest offensive appears to be producing more of the same. Tuesday's deaths of dozens of Palestinians sheltering at a United Nations school are likely to intensify the anti-Israeli backlash.
The lesson is that Israel needs to step back and figure out how to prevent the same cycle from repeating without end: Israel punishing innocent Palestinians in response to terrorism, inevitably stirring up more radicalization, resentment and retaliation.
Popular support for terrorism typically ends when people see a future for themselves. The Irish Republican Army's horrific bombings petered out as people on both sides in Northern Ireland got tired of violence and were steered into a credible political process. The Palestinians' own tangled history with Israel tells a similar tale.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization was once as violent and as bent on Israel's destruction as Hamas is today (though without Hamas' radical Islamic fervor). But the PLO came to accept Israel's right to exist under the Oslo Peace Accord signed in 1994, which promised Palestinians a homeland.
The PLO's iconic leader, Yasser Arafat, ultimately reneged on a final peace deal with Israel. But the framework of a two-state solution remains much as it was outlined in the last days of the Clinton presidency eight years ago.
After Arafat died in 2004, Palestinians became disenchanted with his Fatah successors because of corruption that kept them mired in poverty and without that all-important path to a better life. Hamas won elections in 2006 because it promised a way forward, lavished social services and benefits on Palestinians and vowed to end corruption. But it remained committed to terrorism.
Israel's efforts to split Palestinians from Hamas, however, have long lacked the needed carrots to match its sticks. It has particularly failed to build up Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose government controls the larger Palestinian territory in the West Bank and who wants to be a constructive alternative.
Israel deserves to be safe from Hamas rockets. But it can't ensure lasting security by going after tactical successes likely to radicalize Palestinians over the long term.
Posted at 12:22 AM/ET, January 07, 2009 in Foreign Affairs - Middle East - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial
Opposing view: Israel's inalienable right
Efforts to crush Hamas prompt Arab street to rally behind it.
By Jonathan Peled
Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself and its citizens. While America and Europe are engaged in wars thousands of miles away from their soil, we are entrenched in the front lines of the West's war on terror.
In 2005, Israel voluntarily disengaged from Gaza to create an opportunity for peace, giving Palestinians a chance at self governance and economic prosperity. We worked closely with the U.S. and the international community to prop up Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with economic and diplomatic support.
Unfortunately, Israel's withdrawal was soon followed by Hamas' takeover of Gaza. This Iranian-backed terrorist organization has proven time and again to adamantly oppose peace and coexistence. Each Israeli peace overture has been met with terror. In the past three years, more than 6,000 rockets and mortars have fallen on Israel.
Hamas has brought this war onto itself and fights in the most repugnant and cynical way imaginable. They regularly exploit their own people by turning them into human shields and using schools, mosques and population centers as launch pads for attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers. These barbaric tactics, which violate international humanitarian law, drastically increase the human toll on all sides.
Israel always prefers a political solution to a military one, but sometimes diplomacy is not possible without the deployment of legitimate force. Israel's counter-terrorism operation will continue until Hamas' capability to attack Israeli civilians is minimized and the status quo of constant rocket fire ends, laying the foundation for a durable and sustainable arrangement.
Previous lulls in violence have been viewed by Israel as an opportunity to build peace, but used by Hamas as an opportunity to build rockets and to smuggle in sophisticated weapons. We will not allow our wish for quiet in the short term to enable our destruction in the long term. Hamas cannot be allowed to regroup, rearm and rebuild the smuggling tunnels and terror infrastructure we are destroying.
Eliminating the Hamas obstacle is the only realistic way to advance the peace process and to achieve peace through a two-state solution. We have already made substantial progress with the Palestinian Authority the Palestinian people's legitimate representative and have seen tangible proof that peace is attainable. We are determined not to allow Hamas' terror to derail the process.
Jonathan Peled is the Israeli embassy's spokesman in Washington.
"Today's Debate" articles on same-sex marriage from USA Today
Our view on same-sex marriage: Gay-wedding bell blues
Backers of Proposition 8 in Calif employ scare tactics to win votes.
In California during these last days of Election 2008, the biggest fear-mongering ads aren't from the McCain or Obama camps. They aren't even about taxes or national security. Almost like a time-warp trip back to 2004, one social issue is getting big bucks and big air time: gay marriage.
Religious conservatives are casting Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex weddings, as the last stand against Armageddon. They warn that ministers would be jailed for preaching against homosexuality, or that churches refusing to marry gay couples would face lawsuits and lose tax exemption.
Small matter that thousands of same-sex marriages in California and Massachusetts have neither brought the world to an end nor triggered such excess. Or that with the economy on the ropes and the nation fighting two wars, most people have other things to worry about.
In fact, Americans outside the Golden State could be forgiven for thinking that California already made its decision on gay marriage. After all, in May it became the second state to legalize it (after Massachusetts in 2004, before Connecticut earlier this month), when the California Supreme Court held that gays' inability to marry amounted to discrimination under the state's constitution.
That ruling, however, triggered a predictable backlash and prompted the ballot measure that would reverse the court ruling. Multi-million-dollar campaigns have geared up on both sides. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Prop 8, but recent polls are close.
On the face of it, defeat of Prop 8 would be a victory for gay rights. The problem is that May's court decision reignited the divisive culture wars — hardly the best way for gay couples to gain broad social acceptance, as recent history has proved.
After a Massachusetts court legalized same-sex marriage, the result was a wave of bans against it in 2004, part of a Republican strategy to turn out social conservatives in battleground states. Twenty-seven states now have amendments barring same-sex marriage.
This year, besides California, gay-marriage bans are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. Eight states permit the middle ground preferred by this page — allowing gay men and lesbians to enter civil unions, or register as domestic partners, with the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. The best assure people equal treatment under the law in all practical matters — such as custody of children and next-of-kin status — without the religious implications that the word " marriage" evokes.
Polls show that successive generations have tended to be more accepting of homosexuality, so time might favor an eventual acceptance of gay marriage. Regardless, the states' responsibility is to protect their citizens' rights no matter how their relationships are labeled.
Opposing View
Prop 8 preserves freedoms
By Jim Garlow
When Californians go to the polls on Tuesday, they will decide on an issue that will, because of the state's pace-setting history, have an eventual ripple-down effect on other states.
Proposition 8 would amend California's constitution to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Failure to preserve the definition of traditional marriage has resulted in profound losses of personal freedoms.
Let's consider public education. David and Tonia Parker's kindergarten student came home from their Lexington, Mass., school with a textbook teaching about same-sex marriage, without notification of parents. Because same-sex marriage is legal in the state, the courts declared that the Parkers have no rights to parental notification or the privilege to opt their children out of any discussions.
Private business owners face the same treatment. Elaine Huguenin, 25, of Elane Photography LLC in New Mexico, was fined $6,600 under the state's discrimination laws when she declined to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
Doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of Vista, Calif., were sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a woman with no husband — who turned out to be lesbian — because of their personal religious convictions, even though they provided the names of physicians who would provide such services. The California Supreme Court ruled against the doctors in August.
Churches and religious organizations are not immune. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a campground of Methodist heritage, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status in 2007 because of its refusal to permit a lesbian couple to hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion.
The common thread? When same-sex relationships — especially marriage — acquire government sanction, anyone in opposition to it must be intimidated, silenced, fined, jailed or at least threatened.
For the sake of freedom, Proposition 8 must pass. Failure to stop this in California means it will eventually come to your state.
Jim Garlow, senior pastor at Skyline Church in La Mesa, Calif., directs the California Pastors Rapid Response Team, a network in favor of Proposition 8.
Backers of Proposition 8 in Calif employ scare tactics to win votes.
In California during these last days of Election 2008, the biggest fear-mongering ads aren't from the McCain or Obama camps. They aren't even about taxes or national security. Almost like a time-warp trip back to 2004, one social issue is getting big bucks and big air time: gay marriage.
Religious conservatives are casting Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex weddings, as the last stand against Armageddon. They warn that ministers would be jailed for preaching against homosexuality, or that churches refusing to marry gay couples would face lawsuits and lose tax exemption.
Small matter that thousands of same-sex marriages in California and Massachusetts have neither brought the world to an end nor triggered such excess. Or that with the economy on the ropes and the nation fighting two wars, most people have other things to worry about.
In fact, Americans outside the Golden State could be forgiven for thinking that California already made its decision on gay marriage. After all, in May it became the second state to legalize it (after Massachusetts in 2004, before Connecticut earlier this month), when the California Supreme Court held that gays' inability to marry amounted to discrimination under the state's constitution.
That ruling, however, triggered a predictable backlash and prompted the ballot measure that would reverse the court ruling. Multi-million-dollar campaigns have geared up on both sides. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Prop 8, but recent polls are close.
On the face of it, defeat of Prop 8 would be a victory for gay rights. The problem is that May's court decision reignited the divisive culture wars — hardly the best way for gay couples to gain broad social acceptance, as recent history has proved.
After a Massachusetts court legalized same-sex marriage, the result was a wave of bans against it in 2004, part of a Republican strategy to turn out social conservatives in battleground states. Twenty-seven states now have amendments barring same-sex marriage.
This year, besides California, gay-marriage bans are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. Eight states permit the middle ground preferred by this page — allowing gay men and lesbians to enter civil unions, or register as domestic partners, with the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. The best assure people equal treatment under the law in all practical matters — such as custody of children and next-of-kin status — without the religious implications that the word " marriage" evokes.
Polls show that successive generations have tended to be more accepting of homosexuality, so time might favor an eventual acceptance of gay marriage. Regardless, the states' responsibility is to protect their citizens' rights no matter how their relationships are labeled.
Opposing View
Prop 8 preserves freedoms
By Jim Garlow
When Californians go to the polls on Tuesday, they will decide on an issue that will, because of the state's pace-setting history, have an eventual ripple-down effect on other states.
Proposition 8 would amend California's constitution to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Failure to preserve the definition of traditional marriage has resulted in profound losses of personal freedoms.
Let's consider public education. David and Tonia Parker's kindergarten student came home from their Lexington, Mass., school with a textbook teaching about same-sex marriage, without notification of parents. Because same-sex marriage is legal in the state, the courts declared that the Parkers have no rights to parental notification or the privilege to opt their children out of any discussions.
Private business owners face the same treatment. Elaine Huguenin, 25, of Elane Photography LLC in New Mexico, was fined $6,600 under the state's discrimination laws when she declined to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
Doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of Vista, Calif., were sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a woman with no husband — who turned out to be lesbian — because of their personal religious convictions, even though they provided the names of physicians who would provide such services. The California Supreme Court ruled against the doctors in August.
Churches and religious organizations are not immune. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a campground of Methodist heritage, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status in 2007 because of its refusal to permit a lesbian couple to hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion.
The common thread? When same-sex relationships — especially marriage — acquire government sanction, anyone in opposition to it must be intimidated, silenced, fined, jailed or at least threatened.
For the sake of freedom, Proposition 8 must pass. Failure to stop this in California means it will eventually come to your state.
Jim Garlow, senior pastor at Skyline Church in La Mesa, Calif., directs the California Pastors Rapid Response Team, a network in favor of Proposition 8.
"Today's Debate" articles on arms-control from USA Today
Our view on arms control: U.S.-Russia nuclear deal moves bar in right direction
Arsenal cuts, though worthwhile, are sideshow to today’s big threats.
As the U.S. and Russia whittle down their atomic arsenals, the incremental cuts increasingly resemble a game of nuclear limbo in which negotiators wonder: How low can you go?
Robert McNamara, who died this week and was Defense secretary during some of the darkest days of the Cold War, concluded that about 400 nuclear weapons would achieve "assured" destruction of the Soviet Union. In 1997, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a similar exercise and concluded that about 300 weapons each would be enough for the U.S. and Russia.
So why, a reasonable person might ask, did the U.S. amass more than 32,000 nukes at one point, and the Soviet Union as many as 45,000? And why do the U.S. and Russia still have about 26,000 nuclear weapons between them, some 97% of the world's total?
Whatever combination of fear and over-compensation drove such excess, at least the world's most powerful nuclear nations are taking steps in the right direction.
During President Obama's trip to Russia, which ended Wednesday, he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed in principle to lower the bar another notch, from a maximum of 2,200 deployed long-range nuclear weapons to a limit of 1,675 per nation by 2017. The devices to deliver them — intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear submarines, bombers and so on — could total no more than 1,100, down from 1,600.
These are modest reductions at best, especially considering that each country retains several thousand more reserve and shorter-range weapons.
Critics of reductions, who have steadily dwindled in number, complain that Obama should have waited for the Pentagon's "nuclear posture review." But that process — which examines likely war scenarios and generates the number of nukes needed for them — was completed during the Bush administration, and defense policymakers surely have a good idea what another would show.
More important are details negotiators must work out if Obama wants an agreement ratified by the Senate before the existing Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) — with its crucial verification regime — expires in December. Among the key issues: Can the U.S. keep excess ICBMs and refit them with conventional weapons? Will Russia demand that the U.S. trade away plans to deploy anti-missile systems?
To some extent, though, this is a sideshow. The 21st century concern is less a war between the world's nuclear behemoths than that terrorists will obtain nuclear materiel or that Iran and North Korea will achieve serious nuclear capability, destabilize their neighborhoods and touch off a scramble by other nations to acquire the bomb. Reductions by the U.S. and Russia won't dissuade rogue nations from pursuing nuclear weapons, but cuts can make it easier to make the case for sanctions against them.
As for the limbo question, Obama's "perhaps not in my lifetime" goal of a world going as low as zero nuclear weapons strikes us as very distant indeed. For now, though, the latest agreement leaves the U.S. with more than enough firepower to play offense, play defense, and make the rubble bounce several times over.
Opposing view: Deal weakens U.S. posture
Obama's policy makes risky reductions in nuclear weapons.
By John Bolton
President Obama has to date failed to articulate any coherent strategic rationale for the substantial cuts in nuclear weapons and delivery systems he agreed to Monday with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Obama's inability to do so is not surprising, because he made these commitments without waiting for an up-to-date "nuclear posture review," the definitive mechanism for assessing America's strategic needs.
Avoiding this authoritative process, coupled with the administration's hell-for-leather insistence on ratifying a new treaty by December, and its proposed cuts in missile-defense expenditures and critical weapons systems such as the F-22, demonstrate just how ideologically committed Obama is to a less robust U.S. defense posture. Not only are the proposed cuts in nuclear weapons levels dangerous, but the reductions in delivery systems are even more reckless, as the United States now significantly relies on such systems to deliver conventional warheads. Russia does not.
Obama's approach weakens our nuclear and conventional capabilities, while leaving Russia exactly at levels to which it would otherwise be driven by its own bleak economic realities. Moreover, Russia still insists on linking reductions in U.S. missile defenses to offensive cuts, and Obama hasn't unequivocally rejected this dangerous connection.
Obama's policy is risky for America and its global allies who shelter under our nuclear umbrella. It is hardly the time to shred that umbrella. Nuclear proliferation threats are growing, with North Korea detonating nuclear devices and testing missiles; Iran's nuclear and missile programs progressing; India and Pakistan increasing their capabilities; and other would-be nuclear states watching America's response.
Although Obama hopes dramatic U.S. nuclear weapons reductions will discourage proliferation, the actual result will be the exact opposite. Reality is much harsher than a wishful-thinking administration willing to accept deep cuts in America's defenses, with our military already stretched thin.
The answer is not to rush into any new treaty with Russia by year's end. Preserving the verification mechanisms of the START treaty, which expires then, is doable by simply extending those mechanisms until new strategic levels can be carefully considered and prudently negotiated. Any other approach leaves America vulnerable. Our president should know better.
John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.N. ambassador and under secretary of State for arms control during the George W. Bush administration.
Arsenal cuts, though worthwhile, are sideshow to today’s big threats.
As the U.S. and Russia whittle down their atomic arsenals, the incremental cuts increasingly resemble a game of nuclear limbo in which negotiators wonder: How low can you go?
Robert McNamara, who died this week and was Defense secretary during some of the darkest days of the Cold War, concluded that about 400 nuclear weapons would achieve "assured" destruction of the Soviet Union. In 1997, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a similar exercise and concluded that about 300 weapons each would be enough for the U.S. and Russia.
So why, a reasonable person might ask, did the U.S. amass more than 32,000 nukes at one point, and the Soviet Union as many as 45,000? And why do the U.S. and Russia still have about 26,000 nuclear weapons between them, some 97% of the world's total?
Whatever combination of fear and over-compensation drove such excess, at least the world's most powerful nuclear nations are taking steps in the right direction.
During President Obama's trip to Russia, which ended Wednesday, he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed in principle to lower the bar another notch, from a maximum of 2,200 deployed long-range nuclear weapons to a limit of 1,675 per nation by 2017. The devices to deliver them — intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear submarines, bombers and so on — could total no more than 1,100, down from 1,600.
These are modest reductions at best, especially considering that each country retains several thousand more reserve and shorter-range weapons.
Critics of reductions, who have steadily dwindled in number, complain that Obama should have waited for the Pentagon's "nuclear posture review." But that process — which examines likely war scenarios and generates the number of nukes needed for them — was completed during the Bush administration, and defense policymakers surely have a good idea what another would show.
More important are details negotiators must work out if Obama wants an agreement ratified by the Senate before the existing Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) — with its crucial verification regime — expires in December. Among the key issues: Can the U.S. keep excess ICBMs and refit them with conventional weapons? Will Russia demand that the U.S. trade away plans to deploy anti-missile systems?
To some extent, though, this is a sideshow. The 21st century concern is less a war between the world's nuclear behemoths than that terrorists will obtain nuclear materiel or that Iran and North Korea will achieve serious nuclear capability, destabilize their neighborhoods and touch off a scramble by other nations to acquire the bomb. Reductions by the U.S. and Russia won't dissuade rogue nations from pursuing nuclear weapons, but cuts can make it easier to make the case for sanctions against them.
As for the limbo question, Obama's "perhaps not in my lifetime" goal of a world going as low as zero nuclear weapons strikes us as very distant indeed. For now, though, the latest agreement leaves the U.S. with more than enough firepower to play offense, play defense, and make the rubble bounce several times over.
Opposing view: Deal weakens U.S. posture
Obama's policy makes risky reductions in nuclear weapons.
By John Bolton
President Obama has to date failed to articulate any coherent strategic rationale for the substantial cuts in nuclear weapons and delivery systems he agreed to Monday with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Obama's inability to do so is not surprising, because he made these commitments without waiting for an up-to-date "nuclear posture review," the definitive mechanism for assessing America's strategic needs.
Avoiding this authoritative process, coupled with the administration's hell-for-leather insistence on ratifying a new treaty by December, and its proposed cuts in missile-defense expenditures and critical weapons systems such as the F-22, demonstrate just how ideologically committed Obama is to a less robust U.S. defense posture. Not only are the proposed cuts in nuclear weapons levels dangerous, but the reductions in delivery systems are even more reckless, as the United States now significantly relies on such systems to deliver conventional warheads. Russia does not.
Obama's approach weakens our nuclear and conventional capabilities, while leaving Russia exactly at levels to which it would otherwise be driven by its own bleak economic realities. Moreover, Russia still insists on linking reductions in U.S. missile defenses to offensive cuts, and Obama hasn't unequivocally rejected this dangerous connection.
Obama's policy is risky for America and its global allies who shelter under our nuclear umbrella. It is hardly the time to shred that umbrella. Nuclear proliferation threats are growing, with North Korea detonating nuclear devices and testing missiles; Iran's nuclear and missile programs progressing; India and Pakistan increasing their capabilities; and other would-be nuclear states watching America's response.
Although Obama hopes dramatic U.S. nuclear weapons reductions will discourage proliferation, the actual result will be the exact opposite. Reality is much harsher than a wishful-thinking administration willing to accept deep cuts in America's defenses, with our military already stretched thin.
The answer is not to rush into any new treaty with Russia by year's end. Preserving the verification mechanisms of the START treaty, which expires then, is doable by simply extending those mechanisms until new strategic levels can be carefully considered and prudently negotiated. Any other approach leaves America vulnerable. Our president should know better.
John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.N. ambassador and under secretary of State for arms control during the George W. Bush administration.
"Today's Debate" articles on football from USA Today
Our view on football dangers: NFL drags feet as evidence on head injuries mounts
It’s a violent game, but more can be done to safeguard players’ health.
During Saturday's game against Kentucky, star University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow got knocked cold. In the coming week, Tebow faces a decision hundreds of pro, college and high school players make each season: Whether he has recovered enough from a concussion to play in a key game.
The call comes against a backdrop of mounting evidence that football's violence — combined with the play-through-the-pain mentality that coaches foster and fans love — might be leading to long-term health damage for players.
Just this week, a new survey commissioned by the NFL found that the league's retired players have a far greater chance of suffering from memory-related diseases, such as dementia, later in life than those in the general population. Retirees ages 30 to 49 reported such illnesses at a rate 19 times the normal rate.
You'd think such eye-popping numbers — on top of years of other medical studies with worrisome results — would prompt a sense of urgency on the NFL's part. Instead, the front office has been busy downplaying the news and resisting any link between concussions and long-term damage. The survey has "significant limitations," a spokesman demurred. More research is needed.
True, the survey is not definitive. But it doesn't take a medical degree to figure out that jarring collisions involving today's bigger, stronger, faster football players just might result in some long-term damage to brains. And plenty of people with degrees have confirmed the danger.
About 24% of 2,500 retired NFL players surveyed early this decade had three or more concussions while playing. They were five times as likely to develop mild memory impairments, often precursors to Alzheimer's disease, than players with no concussions, according to a 2005 report by the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of Retired Athletes. Other research has shown how common concussions are in high school and college football: 5% of players suffered one in 1997. Two or more concussions raised the risk of future concussions and slower recoveries.
To its credit, the NFL has been taking head injuries more seriously in recent years. The league has financed research and changed tackling rules. But it could be doing much more, says Kevin Guskiewicz, who directs the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes. Players should get more education about late-in-life consequences. Systems can measure head impact inside helmets, and several colleges, including UNC, have been using them for years. Why not use them widely on the pros?
When Tebow, the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner, decides about playing on Oct. 10 against LSU, he'll have plenty of expert medical advice and will do so in a far more enlightened atmosphere than existed in years past. (As an example of how attitudes can change, consider how tragedies involving dehydration and heat exhaustion have led coaches to add water breaks and curb "two-a-day" practices in stifling August heat.)
Even so, players will always be torn between rational medical decisions and football's macho culture. The NFL's message about concussions could do a lot to push its own players, and younger ones in college and high school, in a healthier direction.
(Teammates check over Tim Tebow Saturday./By Ed Reinke, AP)
Opposing view: ‘We are leading the way’
The NFL is committed to reducing and properly treating concussions.By Harold Henderson
The NFL has played a leading role for years in advancing the prevention, treatment and awareness of concussions in sports.
We have invested millions in research, leading to improved helmets that better protect players at all levels. We led the development of neuropsychological testing, a key tool in the diagnosis and treatment of concussion. Baseline neuropsychological testing for NFL players is mandated. Return-to-play guidelines are more specific and cautious.
Rule changes and strict enforcement of player safety rules, more intensive player education and internal studies showing that team physicians and players are more conservative with concussions demonstrate our commitment to reducing and properly treating this injury.
We initiated and paid for the Michigan survey to learn more about thousands of retired NFL players. Surveys can provide useful information when statistics are properly understood. The information on memory loss was not a medical diagnosis and did not include concussion history, but it clearly warrants further research that is underway. The report's lead author, David Weir, emphasized that the results do not show football causes memory problems, only that the risk is worth studying.
We already have launched a medical study on long-term effects of concussion on retired players in collaboration with faculties from the University of Southern California, University of Wisconsin, Mount Sinai hospital and Wayne State University. All our funded studies, including the Michigan survey, are public and have led to healthy dialogue among medical professionals.
We will continue to be responsible as the science evolves. The health and safety of our players, current and retired, are paramount, and we are leading the way for other athletes. Our medical committee on concussions includes experts from top medical centers. We have regular dialogue and meetings with our critics to learn from them. However, the debate on long-term effects of concussion is between medical experts, not between the NFL and medical experts. We are dealing with facts and responding accordingly, as our record demonstrates.
No one has the final answer, but we continue to emphasize the need for a careful and cautious approach to this complicated injury.
NFL Executive Vice President Harold Henderson is responsible for the league's programs for retired players.
It’s a violent game, but more can be done to safeguard players’ health.
During Saturday's game against Kentucky, star University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow got knocked cold. In the coming week, Tebow faces a decision hundreds of pro, college and high school players make each season: Whether he has recovered enough from a concussion to play in a key game.
The call comes against a backdrop of mounting evidence that football's violence — combined with the play-through-the-pain mentality that coaches foster and fans love — might be leading to long-term health damage for players.
Just this week, a new survey commissioned by the NFL found that the league's retired players have a far greater chance of suffering from memory-related diseases, such as dementia, later in life than those in the general population. Retirees ages 30 to 49 reported such illnesses at a rate 19 times the normal rate.
You'd think such eye-popping numbers — on top of years of other medical studies with worrisome results — would prompt a sense of urgency on the NFL's part. Instead, the front office has been busy downplaying the news and resisting any link between concussions and long-term damage. The survey has "significant limitations," a spokesman demurred. More research is needed.
True, the survey is not definitive. But it doesn't take a medical degree to figure out that jarring collisions involving today's bigger, stronger, faster football players just might result in some long-term damage to brains. And plenty of people with degrees have confirmed the danger.
About 24% of 2,500 retired NFL players surveyed early this decade had three or more concussions while playing. They were five times as likely to develop mild memory impairments, often precursors to Alzheimer's disease, than players with no concussions, according to a 2005 report by the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of Retired Athletes. Other research has shown how common concussions are in high school and college football: 5% of players suffered one in 1997. Two or more concussions raised the risk of future concussions and slower recoveries.
To its credit, the NFL has been taking head injuries more seriously in recent years. The league has financed research and changed tackling rules. But it could be doing much more, says Kevin Guskiewicz, who directs the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes. Players should get more education about late-in-life consequences. Systems can measure head impact inside helmets, and several colleges, including UNC, have been using them for years. Why not use them widely on the pros?
When Tebow, the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner, decides about playing on Oct. 10 against LSU, he'll have plenty of expert medical advice and will do so in a far more enlightened atmosphere than existed in years past. (As an example of how attitudes can change, consider how tragedies involving dehydration and heat exhaustion have led coaches to add water breaks and curb "two-a-day" practices in stifling August heat.)
Even so, players will always be torn between rational medical decisions and football's macho culture. The NFL's message about concussions could do a lot to push its own players, and younger ones in college and high school, in a healthier direction.
(Teammates check over Tim Tebow Saturday./By Ed Reinke, AP)
Opposing view: ‘We are leading the way’
The NFL is committed to reducing and properly treating concussions.By Harold Henderson
The NFL has played a leading role for years in advancing the prevention, treatment and awareness of concussions in sports.
We have invested millions in research, leading to improved helmets that better protect players at all levels. We led the development of neuropsychological testing, a key tool in the diagnosis and treatment of concussion. Baseline neuropsychological testing for NFL players is mandated. Return-to-play guidelines are more specific and cautious.
Rule changes and strict enforcement of player safety rules, more intensive player education and internal studies showing that team physicians and players are more conservative with concussions demonstrate our commitment to reducing and properly treating this injury.
We initiated and paid for the Michigan survey to learn more about thousands of retired NFL players. Surveys can provide useful information when statistics are properly understood. The information on memory loss was not a medical diagnosis and did not include concussion history, but it clearly warrants further research that is underway. The report's lead author, David Weir, emphasized that the results do not show football causes memory problems, only that the risk is worth studying.
We already have launched a medical study on long-term effects of concussion on retired players in collaboration with faculties from the University of Southern California, University of Wisconsin, Mount Sinai hospital and Wayne State University. All our funded studies, including the Michigan survey, are public and have led to healthy dialogue among medical professionals.
We will continue to be responsible as the science evolves. The health and safety of our players, current and retired, are paramount, and we are leading the way for other athletes. Our medical committee on concussions includes experts from top medical centers. We have regular dialogue and meetings with our critics to learn from them. However, the debate on long-term effects of concussion is between medical experts, not between the NFL and medical experts. We are dealing with facts and responding accordingly, as our record demonstrates.
No one has the final answer, but we continue to emphasize the need for a careful and cautious approach to this complicated injury.
NFL Executive Vice President Harold Henderson is responsible for the league's programs for retired players.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
