Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged choice

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Jonah Schacter

Why I Am Pro-Life - NYTimes.com - 2 views

  •  
    Here is a piece around abortion issues and the problem with the term "pro-life". The author states "Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected - not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life.". We have talked about the terrible applications of terms pro-life and pro-choice, it should be pro-choice or no-choice. The problem with the conservatives and tea party is that on one hand they want as small as government as possible, but on the other hand they want to take away or our basic right to freedom of choice. 
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    This definitely feels like a war of words to me. I agree with what you're saying about a certain contradiction in which areas of our lives the parties want to see freedom, and I personally have the same trouble you have with reconciling these differences. I was interested to see the quotes that the author chose for the first paragraph: news outlets have been treating the Todd Akin debacle like the only ignorant thing politicians have been saying about the topic of abortion, and the author shows us that we have plenty to choose from. While I agree with you about the inequality of terms, I don't necessarily think "pro-choice or no-choice" would be any more fair: some pro-lifers could feasibly argue that "no-choice" is inaccurate because it doesn't account for the needs/"choice" of a fetus. I think any change in naming that isn't insane (anti-abortion vs. anti-anti-abortion) would have the same inherent inaccuracies.
  •  
    Okay nothing against you, Jonah, but I saw this article earlier this week and I really dislike it. I think it's such a silly argument - this guy is saying that conservatives don't deserve to call themselves pro-life because they don't support gun regulations and support a larger military? They would say the exact same thing about him because he supports gun regulations and stopping wars but doesn't believe in (in their opinion) stopping the murder of a fetus. I agree that there is something paradoxical about the conservative philosophies on social vs. economic matters, but I think this article goes about exploring that paradox in a really condescending, unproductive way.
  •  
    It's amazing to me how labeling a complex issue can give it powerful meaning. People have been doing this for a long time. The original "family values" were in response to changing views about the LGBTQ community. It was easy for people to think that of course they cared about "family values" without exploring what was exactly behind that movement. I think Friedman does a good job of exploring the use of the term "pro-life'" because really, who isn't pro-life?
  •  
    While I agree with Cody that Friedman's cockiness can be difficult to read, I personally agree with what he is saying. I think there is a problem in the this country with respecting the scientific community. How can people still doubt climate change? The data is there. How can people really think it is a good thing to allow people to carry weapons? The murders are there. While I think this is a potentially divisive way of stating the issue, some of the far right opinions on abortion, gun rights, and climate change seem equally as absurd to me. There is a lot of good that can come out of conservatism, but the conservatism around rights, I don't think is very productive and people will eventually look back on it and scoff.
  •  
    I am also interested in the role of language here, both within the actual issue and in this piece, and what you mentioned, Eli, about how people maintain their viewpoints that are continually in opposition to almost undeniable facts. With both issues it seems that unspoken rules and assumptions carry such weight. It mostly just confuses me.
John West

Week 7: Romney's demographic bind - CNN.com - 0 views

shared by John West on 10 Oct 12 - No Cached
  •  
    This article describes Romney's "demographic bind," which has him falling seriously behind in the non-white vote. The Latino and black electorate, the author describes, have begun the process of making strictly red states (like Georgia) into possibly competitive areas of the country in the future. The author points to the 2008 election, when McCain won a safe majority of America's white vote while Obama won 66% of the Latino vote and a whopping 95% of the black vote, as a signal for two different strategies for Romney. On the one hand, he can and is trying to woo thee Latino vote in states like Nevada and Florida (the RNC had really concrete evidence of this in its choice of speakers). Second, and a little more frightening, he can concentrate his efforts on winning an even greater majority of the white electorate. This is a significant challenge, because it would mean a serious effort at reconciling the generally more socially liberal views of white youth with the social conservatism of the Republican Party's. In the case of immigration reform, embracing a more liberal position would be a win-win for Romney: he could win a greater share of the Latino electorate, among which immigration is a serious concern, and a greater percentage of the younger, more socially liberal white vote that has traditionally voted Democrat. This would almost certainly come with consequences among older and less educated white voters, who would see immigration reform like this as a threat to legitimate control of illegal immigration in the future. Of the two, trying to expand the portion of the white vote seems like the losing option. While the example of immigration reform I mentioned could be a place for compromise, I have trouble seeing how Romney or a future Republican candidate could champion a pro-life and pro-choice stance at the same time, for instance. Rather than focusing on incredibly divisive issues, trying to appeal to the Latino electorate seems like a wiser choice. For Romn
cody s

Barack Obama's economic record: End-of-term report | The Economist - 3 views

  •  
    I chose this article, from The Economist. It's long, and pretty boring, but I think it addresses the issue of Obama's economic record from an (as far as I can tell) objective standpoint. Obama and Romney are making conflicting claims about the state of the American economy under Obama, both of them citing statistics, and, unsure of who to believe, I went in search of an article like this.      The article neither adulates nor lambastes Obama, which I think adds to its credibility. Interestingly, it seems to support Mitt Romney's characterization of Obama as a starry-eyed idealist, saying "Mr. Obama's personal priorities carried the day... Mr. Obama has always portrayed himself as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. In practice, though, he usually chooses bigger government over small."      The articles casts Obama as having arrived to the Oval office with unrealistic goals, but still having made progress despite not living up to those goals. These unrealized goals, though, can still be used against him by the Republicans to win disillusioned Obama voters over to the right.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I think this article does a good job of summarizing Obama's relationship with the economy in a methodical and detailed way. It gave clear descriptions of the steps through which Obama has attempted to restore the economy, balancing heavily number-based evidence with explanations of how Obama's personal initiative comes into play in the world of policy. There is also a good transition in the article to discussing how Obama will tackle issues if he has a second term, which discusses how Obama's often lofty promises, like saying he will not "not to raise taxes on 95% of families" are simply unrealistic and do not make a lot of sense. There is often a general feel that the promises presidential candidates make will be hard to bring to life, so having straightforward evidence to support this was helpful.
  •  
    The point Cody brought up about unrealized goals, but goals with progress, is one that I see being key to the arguments both sides are making. It's a good summary of what's at the heart of Obama's hope to "finish the job" and Romney's sad portrait of the last four years. I think the article really gets at the tough place he is in: are we supposed to criticize or praise Obama for doing basically everything a president should do, but not delivering what he promised? The way it talks about the mini-recession that occurred just because of the transition sort of sells me the claim that a lot of went wrong can't be pinned on him. Granted I don't know that much about economics, the decisions he made for sections of a tanking economy (stimulus, etc.) seemed level-headed, and seemed like they came from a pool of options limited to a "Democrat" choice and a "Republican" choice. Also, debt vs. deficit?
  •  
    I thought it was interesting to read the description of Obama's unique position as a president influencing the US economy. Comparing him to FDR's response to the Depression shed new light on the difficulty of Obama's position and the complexity of his response. Being reminded that the months between FDR's victory and his inauguration were the worst months of the Depression put perspective on Obama's need to both quickly gain credibility and take some serious risks. It was interesting to read that The Economist felt that his stress tests were more effective because they were tougher and more transparent that those set up in Europe. In fact, the only clear criticism they make is that he didn't take the risk to spend a lot of money on the mortgage crisis. I would have thought a more conservative magazine, like The Economist, would think the government should have spent less. It is interesting to think that with all these complicated decisions, Obama's biggest mistake may have been that he promised too much. I think that might be right. Listening to him now, he seems to understand that. His speeches are less inspirational, but in may ways more realistic.
mabel taylor

Which Millionaire Are You Voting For? / Spoiler Alert! G.O.P. Fighting Libertarian's Sp... - 2 views

  •  
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/gary-johnson-the-libertarian-partys-presidential-nominee-worries-republicans.html?pagewanted=all I read these two articles in tandem and was really interested by the intersections and the role that finances play in American politics and the two-party system. Gary Johnson is a really interesting politician and I sometimes consider him a liberal libertarian. I can't see myself ever voting for him, but I think he offers a unique perspective. The idea that he could be a Ralph Nader "to Mr. Romney's Gore" is interesting, though unlikely considering Johnson's radical views. Furthermore, the idea that Democrats are supporting Johnson is pretty unfounded. The paragraphs about Johnson's limited finances and management of his campaign are especially telling after reading this op-ed piece, which details the way virtually every politician (both now and in early American history) comes from a white-collar background and how that creates these blocks in terms of understanding their constituents and making learned decisions. Two lines that I especially enjoy comparing are: "Would you like to be represented by a millionaire lawyer or a millionaire businessmen?" and "Mr. Johnson said he had no problem being labeled a potential spoiler in an election that he views as "a debate between Coke and Pepsi." (He said he viewed himself as Perrier.)" Trying to understand why there are not more blue-collar politicians around is certainly difficult ("Scholars haven't yet confirmed exactly what that is. (Campaign money? Free time? Party gatekeepers?)"), but as this article notes, determining why we are in the current situation is vastly important. The ending analogy, about the rise of female politicians since the '40s is helpful in demonstrat
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I'm glad you posted this. I think Gary Johnson is pretty fascinating guy, and he makes me kind of hopeful about fringe candidates in future elections. He seems to have gained some serious traction, and while there is no chance of him winning the election, the fact that Republicans are so stressed out about his presence in the race is a really promising sign to me of him being taken seriously. You mentioned the idea of Democrats voting for him being unfounded: from what I can tell, the article suggests that centrist youth would respond to the anti-war and legalization part of his platform, which makes sense to me. The line you bring up (millionaire lawyer vs. millionaire businessman) is a really interesting part of the dynamics of this race to me. When people talk about how disconnected Romney is because of his income, I can't help but think of Obama as being in the same boat (especially relative to blue-collar candidates like Johnson). While Romney is certainly mega-wealthy, Obama is definitely not middle class himself.
  •  
    Gary Johnson definitely seems like an interesting guy, and I'm all for the unravelling of the two-party system. I don't think I agree with a lot of his ideas, especially his economic policies, but I think any article written about a non-Romney/Obama candidate is a good thing. The Romney/Obama choice is a limited one, and people should obviously be able to pick a candidate who represents their beliefs, not just one who is affiliated with their party or who comes closest.
  •  
    Articles like these always trouble me. How will this ever change? It is unlikely that it ever will. When we are adults, we will still probably have a two party system with most political candidates being wealthy. I think one of the issues we have in America is the small spectrum on the political scale that the two parties represent. While Democrats and Republicans have their differences, they are still philosophically the same when it comes to what the government should basically do. In other countries, they have more radical thought like liberterians and socialists.
mabel taylor

For President, a Complex Calculus of Race and Politics - 3 views

  •  
    This article discusses Obama's presidency in terms of the racial legacy he leaves behind and the front he presents to the public as well as his inner-struggle to grapple with his own race. The idea that Obama has become increasingly comfortable as the first black president, but is still strapped down by the unspoken rules about how he campaigns and supports African Americans is especially relevant to the election. I wonder what prejudice and assumptions Obama is able to deal with in 2012 that he would have struggled with in 2008, given the more serious air that he didn't have then. The boundaries Obama must abide by in order to not seem like he is giving favors to his own race are exceedingly limited and the pull he feels to leave a strong, aware legacy but to also normalize the situation is convoluted and difficult. This article talks about how Obama's public discussion of race basically mirrors his internal understanding and relationship with his racial identity and that in many ways he "feels boxed in by his blackness," an idea I am really curious about. I have read a lot about how Obama's presidency is not the indication of the post-racial society many thought it would be, but is actually a sign that the country is moving in a positive direction and this article reminds me that the expectations many carry for Obama make it difficult for him to naturally find his place as an African American and in history. Also, for those who watched The Choice, this piece is especially interesting in the context of Obama's early life.
  •  
    I liked this article I thought it brought up good points. Reading it thought I realized I have never really thought of Obama as the first black president, aside from when he was elected in 2008. I view him as just another president, which is a hard thing to do for a lot of people in the country. Four years (or eight if reelected) is not nearly enough time to break down those racial barriers because these things take time. No matter how long this takes and no matter how much grief he gets for potentially being bias to African Americans Obama being elected is a step forward for this nation and four more years is only going to help more. "We have to deal with the specific problems of different groups - blacks, women, gays and lesbians, immigrants - in a way that doesn't allow people to put these wedges in,". I think that quote by Obama is the reason why he should be president for another four years. He is attempting to make us even more united as a nation and I 100% respect and support that. "To blacks who accuse him of not being aggressive on race, Mr. Obama has a reply: "I'm not the president of black America," he has said. "I'm the president of the United States of America." ".
  •  
    Mabel, I agree with what you're saying about the efforts he has to go through to not "favor his own race," and I'm particularly interested in how this interacts with the presidential race and the fact that the majority of black American's are likely to vote for him. In that sense, he is not obligated to woo them in the same way that he is courting the Latino vote in Nevada, Florida, etc. I totally agree with the writing you mention that suggests Obama's election isn't the sign of a post-racial society. Frankly, claims like that seem like a shallow and easy way to treat racial discrimination as if it isn't a problem in the US. In that sense I agree with Jonah: it will take a very long time, and a very, very easy way to stall the progress on racial issues entirely is to pretend like they aren't a big deal. This is specifically where I wonder if Obama could do more. Embracing his racial identity in the moments where it is easiest (like the meetings with leaders, etc.) would be a good step.
John West

Week 9: Why the Benghazi terrorist attack still dogs Obama - CSMonitor.com - 3 views

  •  
    This article highlights the significance of the Benghazi attacks for Obama as the foreign policy debate looms in his future. The author presents the developments to the story in manner sympathetic to Obama, pointing to the difference between "spontaneous" and "opportunistic" in the description of the attack and the "fog of war" Hilary Clinton has used to describe the evolution of the intelligence information. The author also selects the specific points that have become "politically petty": the vocabulary used in the initial attack, whether "terror" was meant in a general way by Obama or specifically geared toward the murder of the ambassador. A new development I hadn't heard about involves House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who endangered the lives of several Libyans by releasing information about their work for the US government at the Embassy. The Benghazi discussion is fascinating to me in a train-wreck sort of way: I agree with what Dan said in class about it basically being a non-issue, and has digressed into the candidates bashing each other on things that have nothing to do with the violence itself. In my opinion, one of two things should be happening: Romney and media outlets should either accuse Obama of deliberately covering up a terrorist attack if that's what they think happened, or they should drop the Benghazi issue if they recognize that extremely complicated events on the other side of the planet evolve over time instead of being obvious immediately. Topics like Obama's drone strike program and Romney's Iran prospects are really substantive and should be talked about at length, but rehashing Benghazi over and over again seems like a distraction from a broader foreign policy debate to me. In the end, I don't feel like the article really answered the question it set forth (why Obama is being attacked on what many consider to be a non-issue). In my opinion, Romney and eager media outlets are looking for a campaign game-changer where ther
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I 100% agree with you. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion to try and put Obama in a bad place. There is not much more to say or do because Romney is trying to win an election and will do whatever he can to make himself look better than Obama. People jump on small things way to quickly and demand immediate explanation. Have they even considered that Obama has been looking into what really happened, can they really not accept that things simply take time?
  •  
    I agree that a lot of the criticism has been mis-directed. I think Romney could have just criticized Obama for letting it happen under his administration ("While he cuts back military spending, US ambassadors and citizens are getting killed in Libya") rather than criticizing him for his choice of words initially addressing the attack. I disagree with you though, John, that the thing has been blown out of proportion. I think that the death of a US ambassador in the Middle East is a very big deal regardless of how the administration addressed it, and that the Romney campaign has failed to capitalize on it.
  •  
    That's a good point - Romney's attack from the start was just off-point. But I am uncomfortable with the whole idea of a tragedy being used for political gain, though I do understand it. Your comment Cody, that "the Romney campaign has failed to capitalize on it," just seems pretty disgusting in its most basic form.
  •  
    Watching all the different controversies that ebb and flow during the election, I wonder how much this affects the voters when they care most about the economy and jobs. I agree with Mabel. The loss of this amazing, brave diplomat shouldn't be used for political gain.
  •  
    Yeah, this was a huge non-issue that I think had no effect on the election whatsoever. Whether or not Romney did a good job of hitting Obama on it, after the debate in which Candy Crowley stepped in, the issue was over. I really didn't think this would be a big deal in the election, and sure enough, it wasn't.
  •  
    I know the election is over and all, but I just got back from a Speech and Debate Tournament where my debate topic was foreign policy. This subject came up a lot, as I was arguing against the current policy, and it was very effective so I can see why this topic is still dogging Obama. Overall I think the foreign policy is bad and think it should be changed.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20 items per page