Throughout the various articles I've read written by Clarence Page for his column "Page's Page" in the Chicago Tribune, I have come to see Page as an independent thinker with generally liberal leanings. His articles, or at least the ones I read, deal with politics: he criticized the supercommittee's attempts to decide how to handle national debt; he noted the Tea Party Movement's apparent loss of sway; he harshly criticized Donald Trump's GOP debate; and he, despite labelling himself as an independent, noted the independent voter's loss of sway. There appears to be a trend here: Page continually proves using credible sources and his own deductive nature where in the government the powers lies: the people.
This is a very idealistic point of view, suggesting that voters have control. Yes, our government was created "by the people, for the people," but corruption and Democrat-Republican squabbles have undermined the strength of the system in a far more obvious way. In the first article I read, Page believes the supercommittee failed to come to an agreement because the mere twelve members couldn't bear to compromise any one of their party's desires. In the second, Tea Partyists were losing strength because they were compromising their ideals in search a larger goal: unseating Obama and putting a proper Republican in his place. In the third article, Page explains his opposition to Trump's debate in that voters are in the Television Age more swayed by what they see on TV than anything. In the fourth, he determines whether the surge of new independent voters may or may not sway the 2012 election in one direction or the other.
Just as the people in question in each article are diverse, so too are their opinions. Page, with a mix of objectivity and sarcasm, errs on the side against Republican policy. He states in the first article I read that he is in support of Obama's taxes-and-cuts plan. He labels himself an independent voters in the fourth article I read. Although he is never shown berating the Republican party, it is safe to assume he is probably the kind of independent that sides with Democrats. A well-informed man, he utilizes sources ranging from college studies to well-known news conduits to prove his points, suggesting he also expects an informed readership. He does not often resort to ad hominem attack, his judgments are supported, and overall I find him liberal and unafraid to show it.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Marking Period 3: Monday #4
(I needed another post with analysis and didn't feel like using one of the articles I had already summarized...)
Page writes about whether independent voters are truly independent.
Clarence Page points out in this article that voters listed as independents aren't actually that "independent" of the Democrat-Republican mentality, and he backs this up by quoting political analyses from various credible sources. He begins by quoting the statistic that voters registered as Democrats and Republicans have dropped 2.5 million since 2008, but that many still vote for one party or the other. Respecting that politics aren't the only reason, Page notes that since the 1960s both parties have lost members because "television and suburbanization have liberated voters from reliance on precinct captains and other party favors." But, with evident sympathy for the independents, he explains that they are independent in hopes that they are voting for a person or an idea, not a party (this is the first of two instances that prove Page himself is a registered independent.)
Page then cites USA Today's report on voter numbers: Democrats have 42 million registered, Republicans have 30 million, and 24 million are independents. Out of the 2.5 million voters dropped out since 2008, the Democrats have lost 1.7 million. Continuing on to prove the independents have grown in rank, Page points out that in the eight swing states, Democrats and Republicans are down 800,000 and 350,000 voters respectively, while independents are up 325,000. Provided that Obama won all eight states in 2008 ("Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (sic - I support the use of the Oxford comma) and Pennsylvania,") it was predicted by North Carolina's election director that the 2012 election will be determined by independents.
Purposely contrasting his previous point, Page explains that independents generally know which side of the left-right debate they're on; election scholars have proved this and have questioned whether independents make a difference at all. A 1992 book called "The Myth of the Independent Voter" deduced that only 10% of independents actually vote for neither Democrats nor Republicans, and that these authors also found independents were often less informed on politics. In a sidenote Page comforts his "fellow self-declared independent voters," pointing out that the fact that they read his column suggests they should not be counted as "underinformed." That Page is an independent explaining the ineffectiveness of independents as a whole should be noted - he is commenting on the strength of the polarization in today's government.
Connecting back to his USA Today example, Page quotes from an Emory University study that although independents were 40% of eligible voters in 2008, they only made up 33% of the election votes, and only 7% of those people actually voted independently. Driving home the point that independents are ineffectual, Page notes that in the in the five presidential elections since 1972 that had a win margin of less than five, the independents actually voted for the loser (some examples being 1976, 2000, and 2004.) Page concludes by suggesting that perhaps some independents are hoping for a third party in the future. But, as this article proved how different independents' opinions are, a party will not satisfy their needs.
Page writes about whether independent voters are truly independent.
Clarence Page points out in this article that voters listed as independents aren't actually that "independent" of the Democrat-Republican mentality, and he backs this up by quoting political analyses from various credible sources. He begins by quoting the statistic that voters registered as Democrats and Republicans have dropped 2.5 million since 2008, but that many still vote for one party or the other. Respecting that politics aren't the only reason, Page notes that since the 1960s both parties have lost members because "television and suburbanization have liberated voters from reliance on precinct captains and other party favors." But, with evident sympathy for the independents, he explains that they are independent in hopes that they are voting for a person or an idea, not a party (this is the first of two instances that prove Page himself is a registered independent.)
Page then cites USA Today's report on voter numbers: Democrats have 42 million registered, Republicans have 30 million, and 24 million are independents. Out of the 2.5 million voters dropped out since 2008, the Democrats have lost 1.7 million. Continuing on to prove the independents have grown in rank, Page points out that in the eight swing states, Democrats and Republicans are down 800,000 and 350,000 voters respectively, while independents are up 325,000. Provided that Obama won all eight states in 2008 ("Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (sic - I support the use of the Oxford comma) and Pennsylvania,") it was predicted by North Carolina's election director that the 2012 election will be determined by independents.
Purposely contrasting his previous point, Page explains that independents generally know which side of the left-right debate they're on; election scholars have proved this and have questioned whether independents make a difference at all. A 1992 book called "The Myth of the Independent Voter" deduced that only 10% of independents actually vote for neither Democrats nor Republicans, and that these authors also found independents were often less informed on politics. In a sidenote Page comforts his "fellow self-declared independent voters," pointing out that the fact that they read his column suggests they should not be counted as "underinformed." That Page is an independent explaining the ineffectiveness of independents as a whole should be noted - he is commenting on the strength of the polarization in today's government.
Connecting back to his USA Today example, Page quotes from an Emory University study that although independents were 40% of eligible voters in 2008, they only made up 33% of the election votes, and only 7% of those people actually voted independently. Driving home the point that independents are ineffectual, Page notes that in the in the five presidential elections since 1972 that had a win margin of less than five, the independents actually voted for the loser (some examples being 1976, 2000, and 2004.) Page concludes by suggesting that perhaps some independents are hoping for a third party in the future. But, as this article proved how different independents' opinions are, a party will not satisfy their needs.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Marking Period 3: Monday #3
An article on Trump's debate.
(This is the first of two analyzed columns for this grading period)
Clarence Page writes in this column about Donald Trump's proposed GOP debate and how it is being handled by the GOP. His position is that it should not happen and that the Republican Party should be doing something about preventing candidates from debating in it. He begins referencing Karl Rove's outrage at Trump's December 27 debate, and then he follows by highlighting the irony of Rove's reaction. Trump's debate is described on the conservative Newsmax website to be "'the most important meeting of the major Republican candidates before the Iowa caucus (sic) and primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida!'" This kind of over-statement is what Karl Rove has engaged in for years - it's what he is famous for: spinning information to suit his purposes, or being a "spin-doctor." Page outright states that he considers this "poetic justice."
But, despite emphasizing the irony, Page continues quoting Rove's issues with Trump's debate and explaining why Rove is right. First, Rove notes that Trump intends to endorse one of the candidates, meaning if he were to moderate a debate, Trump would not be impartial as moderators should be. Page comments, sarcastically calling Trump "The Donald" (his nickname) out on what would probably amount to a political version of Trump's reality show Celebrity Apprentice. Also, Page points out that Trump has said he might even try running for president in this election. Rove thinks the Republican National Committee chairman should put a stop this, and Page relays the chairman's less-than-favorable reaction later on.
In response to Rove's qualms, Trump is quoted calling Rove "'highly overrated,' not 'a smart person' and 'basically … a loser.'" Apparently this is similar to how Trump reacted to the first declined invites to his debate from John Huntsman and Ron Paul - that Page goes out of his way to mention this suggests his disapproval of Trump. Page capitalizes Trump's petulance by mentioning how kind Trump was to Newt Gingrich when he accepted the invitation. Then, Page connects back to the Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, who is leaving it up to the candidates to decide whether or not to participate in this debate, and ultimately the voters, or TV viewers, to decide whether to watch. Succinctly, Page says, "That's wise." He calls the debate "Trump's latest reality show," and makes this into a biting metaphor - suggesting Trump bring in guest judges like Randy Jackson (American Idol) and Bruno Tonioli (Dancing With The Stars) to help viewers decide - he carries to the end of the article.
Page ends the metaphor abruptly, stating that perhaps to get voters involved, "a little show biz the price we pay." Utilizing irony and sarcasm, Clarence Page explains why he believes Trump's GOP debate should not be allowed.
(This is the first of two analyzed columns for this grading period)
Clarence Page writes in this column about Donald Trump's proposed GOP debate and how it is being handled by the GOP. His position is that it should not happen and that the Republican Party should be doing something about preventing candidates from debating in it. He begins referencing Karl Rove's outrage at Trump's December 27 debate, and then he follows by highlighting the irony of Rove's reaction. Trump's debate is described on the conservative Newsmax website to be "'the most important meeting of the major Republican candidates before the Iowa caucus (sic) and primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida!'" This kind of over-statement is what Karl Rove has engaged in for years - it's what he is famous for: spinning information to suit his purposes, or being a "spin-doctor." Page outright states that he considers this "poetic justice."
But, despite emphasizing the irony, Page continues quoting Rove's issues with Trump's debate and explaining why Rove is right. First, Rove notes that Trump intends to endorse one of the candidates, meaning if he were to moderate a debate, Trump would not be impartial as moderators should be. Page comments, sarcastically calling Trump "The Donald" (his nickname) out on what would probably amount to a political version of Trump's reality show Celebrity Apprentice. Also, Page points out that Trump has said he might even try running for president in this election. Rove thinks the Republican National Committee chairman should put a stop this, and Page relays the chairman's less-than-favorable reaction later on.
In response to Rove's qualms, Trump is quoted calling Rove "'highly overrated,' not 'a smart person' and 'basically … a loser.'" Apparently this is similar to how Trump reacted to the first declined invites to his debate from John Huntsman and Ron Paul - that Page goes out of his way to mention this suggests his disapproval of Trump. Page capitalizes Trump's petulance by mentioning how kind Trump was to Newt Gingrich when he accepted the invitation. Then, Page connects back to the Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, who is leaving it up to the candidates to decide whether or not to participate in this debate, and ultimately the voters, or TV viewers, to decide whether to watch. Succinctly, Page says, "That's wise." He calls the debate "Trump's latest reality show," and makes this into a biting metaphor - suggesting Trump bring in guest judges like Randy Jackson (American Idol) and Bruno Tonioli (Dancing With The Stars) to help viewers decide - he carries to the end of the article.
Page ends the metaphor abruptly, stating that perhaps to get voters involved, "a little show biz the price we pay." Utilizing irony and sarcasm, Clarence Page explains why he believes Trump's GOP debate should not be allowed.
Marking Period 3: Monday #2
About the rise of Newt Gingrich and the fall of the Tea Party
In this column, Clarence Page writes about how Newt Gingrich's rise in popularity signals the fall of the Tea Party Movement. Page begins noting that Gingrich has gained so much attention with the help of tea party supporters. As a movement that formed to remove "fat cats and wheeler-dealers who line their pockets while raising taxes," that they would support Gingrich, who is known to have made millions by "advising, promoting and lobbying for big corporate and public policy interests" with companies such as Freddie Mac doesn't fit with their mission statement. He also reminds us that Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in history to be disciplined on ethics violations, driving home that the Tea Party is ignoring quite a bit of Gingrich's history. Why are they doing this? Because they'd rather Gingrich rise to beat out Romney for the Republican nomination and usurp Obama, whose administration led to the founding of the Movement in the first place.
Page explains that the tea partyists want him for his confidence and understanding of what the GOP is in support. He reasons that Gingrich's announcement of candidacy was perfectly timed because "the right was energized and the left [...] was demoralized," and Gingrich showed a decisiveness of yet Obama had not. From there on Gingrich had to contend with the indecisiveness of Republican polls - in particular, Mitt Romney's spot as the GOP favorite. But, with his own wit and Herman Cain's "stumbles," suddenly he was tying with or passing Romney in polls. Page notes that although this could be an example of "the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month," it being so close to the Iowa caucuses, this surge of popularity could prove pivotal.
Connecting back to the question of the Tea Party's pull, Page wonders if the Movement is buying into Gingrich possibly beating Obama in the 2012 Election or selling out on their ideals - he decides it is probably some of both. That they are beginning to blend in with other Republicans suggests to Page that "the name remains, but the spirit is fading."
In this column, Clarence Page writes about how Newt Gingrich's rise in popularity signals the fall of the Tea Party Movement. Page begins noting that Gingrich has gained so much attention with the help of tea party supporters. As a movement that formed to remove "fat cats and wheeler-dealers who line their pockets while raising taxes," that they would support Gingrich, who is known to have made millions by "advising, promoting and lobbying for big corporate and public policy interests" with companies such as Freddie Mac doesn't fit with their mission statement. He also reminds us that Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in history to be disciplined on ethics violations, driving home that the Tea Party is ignoring quite a bit of Gingrich's history. Why are they doing this? Because they'd rather Gingrich rise to beat out Romney for the Republican nomination and usurp Obama, whose administration led to the founding of the Movement in the first place.
Page explains that the tea partyists want him for his confidence and understanding of what the GOP is in support. He reasons that Gingrich's announcement of candidacy was perfectly timed because "the right was energized and the left [...] was demoralized," and Gingrich showed a decisiveness of yet Obama had not. From there on Gingrich had to contend with the indecisiveness of Republican polls - in particular, Mitt Romney's spot as the GOP favorite. But, with his own wit and Herman Cain's "stumbles," suddenly he was tying with or passing Romney in polls. Page notes that although this could be an example of "the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month," it being so close to the Iowa caucuses, this surge of popularity could prove pivotal.
Connecting back to the question of the Tea Party's pull, Page wonders if the Movement is buying into Gingrich possibly beating Obama in the 2012 Election or selling out on their ideals - he decides it is probably some of both. That they are beginning to blend in with other Republicans suggests to Page that "the name remains, but the spirit is fading."
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Marking Period 3: Monday #1
For the next grading period I will be following Clarence Page, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
Mr. Page writes this week about a failed attempt to end the Congressional stalemate on budget cuts and taxes. He begins with a snide remark about the congressional supercommittee and then contrasts today's Congress against the compromises the covert groups of senators used to make in the '20s - capitalizing the current lack of governmental decision-making. Though the twelve-person Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or the "supercommittee," was equally manned by the two houses and parties of Congresss, Page explains because it had partisans instead of independent decision-makers, "it was doomed from the start."
The failure of the supercommittee started a blame game with each party blaming the other, and in particular the Republicans criticizing Obama's "lack of 'leadership.'" Page then explains that Obama's months-old proposal of a mix of cuts and taxes is generally the most supported by the polls (compared to the Republican plan of all cuts and no taxes); he references Grover Norquist, an activist in support of the Republicans, who Democratic supercommittee member Senator John Kerry cites as the "'13th member of this committee without being there.'" Norquist is threatening Republicans who try to side with the Democrats with attempts at unseating - he is a prime example of the refusal to compromise that prompted Page's article in the first place.
Succinctly Page finishes with a sarcastic announcement of his - and the voters' - belief in Obama's idea.
Mr. Page writes this week about a failed attempt to end the Congressional stalemate on budget cuts and taxes. He begins with a snide remark about the congressional supercommittee and then contrasts today's Congress against the compromises the covert groups of senators used to make in the '20s - capitalizing the current lack of governmental decision-making. Though the twelve-person Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or the "supercommittee," was equally manned by the two houses and parties of Congresss, Page explains because it had partisans instead of independent decision-makers, "it was doomed from the start."
The failure of the supercommittee started a blame game with each party blaming the other, and in particular the Republicans criticizing Obama's "lack of 'leadership.'" Page then explains that Obama's months-old proposal of a mix of cuts and taxes is generally the most supported by the polls (compared to the Republican plan of all cuts and no taxes); he references Grover Norquist, an activist in support of the Republicans, who Democratic supercommittee member Senator John Kerry cites as the "'13th member of this committee without being there.'" Norquist is threatening Republicans who try to side with the Democrats with attempts at unseating - he is a prime example of the refusal to compromise that prompted Page's article in the first place.
Succinctly Page finishes with a sarcastic announcement of his - and the voters' - belief in Obama's idea.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #5: Synthesis
As a fairly objective Jewish kid growing up in the North Shore school system, the question of Evolutionism and Creationism never crossed my mind. I come from a religion of progressives who often have a hand in scientific discovery, and my school never mentioned Creationism when I first learned evolutionary theory. However, outside my shelter, the rest of American education has been locked in a battle of science and religion for more than a century. Some think one or the other should be taught; others think both should be explained so that students can determine their own opinions. I think that only Evolution should be taught.
Author Jack Wellman (Monday #1) believes both theories should be taught, and he backs up his claim with the Constitution. Similarly, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell (Monday #3) mention that voters would like to see criticisms and alternatives available to students. I recognize that the First Amendment decrees we cannot refuse to teach either idea, and I see the merit in trying to be objective with both theories, but I side with the ideas expressed by MSNBC's Associated Press (Monday #2) and Craig E. Nelson (Monday #4.) The Associated Press makes the argument that as Intelligent Design, or Creationism, isn't a true science, it cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolutionism. To me, something that relies so heavily on religion is a far touchier subject to broach in a classroom than the stark objectivity of Evolutionism, and Craig Nelson agrees. Evolution should only be taught in the classroom because it is true science, Intelligent Design is too intertwined with religion and isn't true science, and less legal troubles are likely to come from Evolution than from Creationism.
Author Jack Wellman (Monday #1) believes both theories should be taught, and he backs up his claim with the Constitution. Similarly, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell (Monday #3) mention that voters would like to see criticisms and alternatives available to students. I recognize that the First Amendment decrees we cannot refuse to teach either idea, and I see the merit in trying to be objective with both theories, but I side with the ideas expressed by MSNBC's Associated Press (Monday #2) and Craig E. Nelson (Monday #4.) The Associated Press makes the argument that as Intelligent Design, or Creationism, isn't a true science, it cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolutionism. To me, something that relies so heavily on religion is a far touchier subject to broach in a classroom than the stark objectivity of Evolutionism, and Craig Nelson agrees. Evolution should only be taught in the classroom because it is true science, Intelligent Design is too intertwined with religion and isn't true science, and less legal troubles are likely to come from Evolution than from Creationism.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #4
The final view comes from this article.
In an article by emeritus professor of biology Craig E. Nelson, he explains why Intelligent Design (or ID) should not be taught in schools. First, he identifies four major obstacles: it is "almost universally" recognized to not be science; to require it would be unconstitutional; legal entanglements will surely ensue if it is required; and to not emphasis the truth of Evolutionism would prove to be a disadvantage to future biologists. He continues with another more personal problem: how religion fits in. As an example, Nelson cites Michael Behe, a prominent biologist in support of ID; the biologist claims cells are too complex to have been formed by Evolution, but refuses to give a name to the intelligent force that supposedly did create them. In short, Nelson's point here is that the discussion of ID in a classroom environment has the potential to question the religious views of all students.
The critique of Behe's views continues with the recognition of an assumption Intelligent Design makes: that some aspects of organisms that appear not to have undergone Evolution will never be proved to have been through it. Nelson lists examples of proven "missing links" between organisms which once had no evolutionary explanation for their traits and suggests that if ID were taught, it too would have to address the ways in which complex structures form (as evolutionary theory already has.) The article concludes with the fact that if both ID and Evolution were taught, so too would critiques of both need to be heard; a critique of ID would most certainly seem an indirect attack on religion. Nelson says simply that he is in agreement with the teachers who refuse to bring their students' religious beliefs into the classroom.
(As for the post that used to be here... I was more than a little frustrated with myself for my lack of effort in your class - that was directed entirely at me, not you. I agree that it was inappropriate, and nothing of the sort will ever again be posted while I work on the Monday Matters project. I am very sorry.)
In an article by emeritus professor of biology Craig E. Nelson, he explains why Intelligent Design (or ID) should not be taught in schools. First, he identifies four major obstacles: it is "almost universally" recognized to not be science; to require it would be unconstitutional; legal entanglements will surely ensue if it is required; and to not emphasis the truth of Evolutionism would prove to be a disadvantage to future biologists. He continues with another more personal problem: how religion fits in. As an example, Nelson cites Michael Behe, a prominent biologist in support of ID; the biologist claims cells are too complex to have been formed by Evolution, but refuses to give a name to the intelligent force that supposedly did create them. In short, Nelson's point here is that the discussion of ID in a classroom environment has the potential to question the religious views of all students.
The critique of Behe's views continues with the recognition of an assumption Intelligent Design makes: that some aspects of organisms that appear not to have undergone Evolution will never be proved to have been through it. Nelson lists examples of proven "missing links" between organisms which once had no evolutionary explanation for their traits and suggests that if ID were taught, it too would have to address the ways in which complex structures form (as evolutionary theory already has.) The article concludes with the fact that if both ID and Evolution were taught, so too would critiques of both need to be heard; a critique of ID would most certainly seem an indirect attack on religion. Nelson says simply that he is in agreement with the teachers who refuse to bring their students' religious beliefs into the classroom.
(As for the post that used to be here... I was more than a little frustrated with myself for my lack of effort in your class - that was directed entirely at me, not you. I agree that it was inappropriate, and nothing of the sort will ever again be posted while I work on the Monday Matters project. I am very sorry.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)