Our Greatest National Shame

From Steven Zhang, currently in China:

Nicholas Kristof describes that our greatest national shame is in our education. He believes that education is the most important issue because it has the ability to lead the nation to a better economy. Despite its importance, the education sector in the United States has been falling behind the education sectors of other countries. Though Kristof believes that the stimulus package, which offered over $100 billion to education, provides an opportunity for the nation to reform its education, he also states that money is not the main issue that is facing our education. He argues that in order to improve the education in the United States, we must improve our teachers and our way of screening for teachers.


Kristof uses many rhetorical techniques to present his argument. In this article, he uses a casual tone as if carrying out a conversation to create a mood that is suitable to a common reader. He also builds his credibility by citing professionals and institutions, for example the education department, education secretary, etc. He substantiates almost all of his claims with these sources. Kristof also uses a rhetorical question denouncing those who reject education as a major problem in the United States. Kristof also strengthen his position by offering solutions to the problem he addresses. Professionals in the field of education also support these solutions. Although so far this article seems to be very logos-centric, Kristof also tap into people’s emotions by deeming this problem as a “national shame” and the “greatest injustice”.

Can literature transcend language? Ha Jin takes the worthwhile risk.

Through a recently published article, Chinese native Ha Jin defended his position in a struggle amongst conflicting loyalties of his immigrant and home countries. In the United States, freedom of expression is something often taken for granted. However, Ha Jin's decision to remain in the free states after the massacre of Tiananmen Square had roots deeply entwined with this principle. Because the Communist Party of China censors all published works, he felt that the literary value of his writings would be compromised. As a result, the budding author decisively began to project towards an American audience rather than a Chinese one, an act viewed as betrayal to many traditionalists of his own race. To justify his decision, Ha Jin conveyed his hope that "literature can transcend language," affecting China indirectly at first, but making a lasting impact later.
I feel that the article was well-founded in addition to well-written. It was clear, through the employment of simple but highly-impacting sentences, that the author was truly passionate about the subject. The reader became unavoidably wrapped up in the web of words making up Ha Jin's story, drawn in close; breath on breath, skin on skin. The paragraphs are not fluffy with excessive wording, but rather cleanly round the edges of raw emotion behind the life-altering decision of a man seeking truth. It is clear that neither fear of estrangement from his race, nor that of language barriers, nor that of gaining respect in a country of great literary geniuses could deter Ha Jin from attaining his goal to promote change presently rather than passively wait for it. I believe his risk was worthwhile and a great act of courage. Perhaps if more people would go to such lengths to promote positive change, the world could get on track and spin smoothly again.

The Commander in Chef

Michelle Obama has taken active steps to prove that eating locally and organically is possible for the average American. By doing things such as planting a backyard vegetable garden at the White House, Mrs. Obama is trying to show Americans that healthy eating is practical and feasible in mainstream America. However, guest columnist Amanda Hesser believes that these efforts are not enough to win over every American. Mrs. Obama has stated jokingly several times that she does not like to cook and is grateful that she has a White House kitchen staff to do the chore for her. Mrs. Obama’s feelings represent a paradox in the American culinary world. While cooking healthy, fresh food takes equal or less time as cooking pre-packaged convenience foods, most Americans still choose to cook preservative and chemical enriched boxed or frozen meals. This unique situation may be the reason behind the obesity epidemic throughout the country because of the lack of fresh fruits and vegetables in Americans’ diets. Hesser points out that locally-grown, organic fresh fruits and vegetables are nothing unless prepared. While Mrs. Obama’s steps are commendable, as an average American, backyard vegetable plots and locally-grown produce still do not seem like a feasible, viable option, when supermarkets conveniently stock a variety of cheaper produce.

Hesser cites quotes given by Mrs. Obama to various news publications as evidence for her unwillingness to cook. Hesser uses these quotes to suggest that Mrs. Obama is not doing enough to convince Americans that backyard vegetable plots are a possibility for every citizen in America. The author also offers her opinion on how Mrs. Obama should go about deepening her message, which in Hesser’s opinion includes addressing the preparation of produce. Hesser’s argument does not address the main reason why Americans do not eat locally-grown produce, but instead focuses on a superficial rationale. Convenience is probably the main explanation for America’s addiction to processed, packaged foods. Until organic, locally-grown foods become a staple at supermarkets, Americans will still continue to rely on food processing companies such as Kraft and Nabisco for their nutritional needs. Mrs. Obama is surely a role model for the average American, but something as trivial as her disinclination to cook food grown in her backyard should not be taken as the basis for mainstream America’s reluctance to embrace the organic, locally-grown movement.

The Earth Wins One

With so much negative and passive attitudes towards the world’s current greenhouse gas and ozone depletion, an Op-Ed columnist has decided to focus on the positive, saying that “The earth has finally won one”. The author of this article explains that after many years poor environmental conditions, President Obama is finally trying to give back to the earth’s atmosphere what we as humans have taken away. Obama’s attempts at improving the environment by raising the standards for automobile emissions and mileage were very much praised by the author of this article, and it can be assumed that the he or she holds some contempt for the past Bush administration. Though the author may be simply stating that things are finally turning around for the environment, it seems as though he is focusing more on the political aspect of the whole ordeal.

The style of this author can be explained as persuasive and generally one-sided. Though in this particular article the purpose was to ultimately explain that we as a nation are taking a step forward rather than another step back environmentally, it seemed to me that the author could not resist to slyly “take a stab” at the previous Bush administration’s failure to be proactive in the environment. The author referred to Obama’s environmental plan as “aggressive and imaginative” and to Bush’s as “wearying and unproductive”. Though true or not, no matter what side someone may be on politically, a win for the earth is never considered a bad thing.

Dance With Democracy

Yiyum Li’s Op-Ed contribution describes the life of students in China who did not protest on the bloody day of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Her argument relates to how awful the Chinese government is towards its citizens and how much it affects the citizens lives everyday. She bases her argument mainly on the events around the Tiananmen Square massacre. She uses many statements and literary devices to show the reader the truth around the massacre and how horrible the government was during and after the massacre. Yiyum also creates a deep understanding of how the government affects the citizens in their daily life and also how the citizens’ minds are brainwashed by the government. Yiyum shows there is no true citizen who lives his or her life in freedom. She states that, “One does not have to steal to feel like a thief” (Li 1). This statement shows a corrupt state of mind created by the communist Chinese government. I think her article is interesting because she reveals what life was like for the students who did not go to the square. I have not thought about the response by the Chinese government towards students after the massacre and this reveals the harshness brought down upon them. She feels guilty even though she was not even at the square. I think that she should not feel this way and her feelings are due to the corrupt ideas her government instilled in her. Li’s point of view is an interesting way of looking at the effects of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. This view is not very clear and only the few that have escaped the communist country can tell the true story of the events on and after this horrible tragedy.

Li uses many facts and imagery to show the reader how horrible the massacre was by including a statement about a fellow student which states, “he saw a boy shot in the chest, a young man crushed under a tank and a girl’s forehead pierced by a bullet” (Li 1). This shows the true carnage that occurred at the square. Yiyum also describes how people try to stay out of trouble with the government due to the fear of their government. The reader is able to see the effect within Yiyum in her social and private life when she states, “In reality, while we were waltzing in silent fear, my hands became cold in his, and even before the song ended I began to withdraw from his life. Until then I had been one of his closest friends” (Li 1). Her statement helps further enhance her argument of the horrible treatment of the communist government towards their people and creates a deep sense of remorse within Yiyum. She also uses imagery to describe the true fear the police create within students when they just want to ask questions to them. She states, “He looked upset, and as he spun me to a corner of the room, his hands felt feverish in mine. He told me that he had been summoned to the headmaster’s office where two policemen questioned him about his whereabouts on that night in June” (Li 1). Usually, police are suppose to create a since of security and peace in the people they are suppose to protect, obviously this is not the case for young Yiyum when she lived within a communist world during the Tiananmen Square massacre.

A Bottle Bill That Will Rot Your Teeth

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a New York Times Op-Ed contributor, recently wrote an article on the topic of new bottle deposit laws. The article, titled “A Bottle Bill That Will Rot Your Teeth”, focuses on a bottle law that was passed by the New York Legislature last month. Kennedy writes that because the average person throws away almost 300 pounds of packaging every year, New York’s bottle deposit law must be updated to cover beverages like tea and bottled water. A good deposit bill has the opportunity to encourage recycling of new types of beverage bottles. This in turn could provide financing for curbside programs that collect other types of recyclable materials. In Kennedy’s mind, the law passed by the New York Legislature fails to accomplish recycling goals and will ultimately harm the existing recycling programs in New York. Governor David Paterson originally proposed a law that required deposits for the new beverage categories, but the new bottle law only covers bottled water. The Legislature excluded all noncarbonated beverages containing sugar from the deposit law meaning consumers are expected to pay more for healthier drinks than they are for sugar-filled drinks. Kennedy is “committed to achieving zero waste through recycling. To get there we need bottle deposit laws that require all beverage makers to take responsibility for reaching the highest possible levels of recycling.”

In his article, Kennedy uses other bottle laws to support his argument that New York’s bottle law needs to be changed. Oregon was the first state to implement a bottle deposit law in an effort to reduce litter from single-serving containers. California’s bottle law applies to more beverage types and helps finance curbside recycling for almost every household. As an avid water drinker, I completely agree with Robert Kennedy and his opinions on recycling in his article. People should feel that it is their civic duty to recycle and help the environment. New York’s law undermines recycling programs and that is unacceptable. I see eye to eye with Kennedy when he says “the law is a boondoggle that will give sugared beverage producers an unfair market advantage while undermining convenient recycling programs. Governor Paterson and the Legislature should trash it and get to work on the bigger and better bottle bill that New York deserves.” These new bottle deposit laws need to encourage people to recycle all types of bottles and containers and, additionally, provide financing for curbside recycling.

Preventable Deaths?

In “Preventable Deaths,” the author explains that, regardless of the crippling condition of the world economy, developed countries must continue to aid developing countries. The author describes how many deaths worldwide, especially in developing countries, are preventable and pushes the blame for these deaths onto developed countries that are merely trying to stabilize their own economies. This argument is very ignorant as well as one-sided. The author fails to take the world economy’s situation into consideration and brushes the economic depression off as a light excuse for historically rich countries to horde money; unfortunately, the author’s thoughts about this are too generous. Whether a country can contribute money and aid to help another country or not is a simple demonstration of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In order for a country to have a good economy, it must have a stable economic situation. In order for a country to have money, it must have a good economy. In order for a country to contribute money and aid to another country, it must first have money of its own. In today’s economic depression, the stability of previously rich nation’s economies is gone; consequentially, no money is available to contribute to other countries. Like in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, once a bottom level is gone, the upper levels can no longer exist. In this editorial, the author seems to forget this in his or her argument and implies that, although these supposedly rich countries are experiencing one of the worst economic downturns since World War II, they have money just lying around that they can use to stop preventable deaths. Because this, of course, is not true, the author of this editorial clearly has a single-minded argument that, if one analyzes closely, defies logic.

The author of “Preventable Deaths” does an excellent and incredibly convincing job of establishing his or her opinion. The author carefully crafts his or her specific arguments in such a way that he or she is able to use as many number-related facts and statistics as possible. Because most of the people reading this particular article probably live in the developed countries this author degrades, guilt is an obvious and effective tool the author uses to force his or her views onto the readers. The author also provides seemingly simple solutions, although they are less practical and more expensive than the author leads the reader to believe, encouraging the reader to help fight poverty and disease, two guilt-inspiring causes. To appear open-minded the author lightly addresses the positives and improvements regarding the world’s poor, or counterarguments to his or her argument that the world’s poor are continuing to slip deeper into poverty and death. Although the author only briefly discuses these accomplishments and dismisses them as trivial, the fact that he or she acknowledges counterarguments makes the author seem more open-minded and thus more trustworthy. Taking advantage of multiple paragraphs, the author uses multiple short paragraphs as well as one paragraph with only one short sentence for dramatic effect. Many of the author’s paragraphs also end in abrupt, sharp sentences that establish the author’s sharp and straightforward tone. Along with the short sentences, however, the author does an excellent job of incorporating numerous sentences of varied lengths. The author utilizes both simple and advanced vocabulary depending on the point the author is trying to get across and the place the particular word, and sentence, is in the article.