Discussion on weeks-23-research-and-journal

[Janny R]

Rosa Moran
English 101
Essay 1.1

Rich Tucker falsely gets the point that Bacevich wants to make on the
solution to our declining economy. In Rich Tucker’s January 23,
2009
column in Townhall.com, “Iceberg Economics” compares Bacevich’s plan
to an unplugged coffee maker in the sinking RMS Titanic when it hit
an
iceberg. Tucker sees Bacevich’s plan as insignificant in
accomplishing relief for troubled economy. According to Tucker there
are bigger problems to solve, he states that “our country has a
serious problem, and it’s time to set the pieties of environmental
activists aside” according to Tucker that’s what Bacevich plan is an
environmental fanaticism and nothing else.

Revision by Janny Rivera:

In this January 23, 2009 column in Towmhall.com ‘’ Iceberg
Economics’’ Rich Tucker claims that Bacevich’s plans on solving the
current economical crisis are insignificant. He compares Bacevich
political views to an unplugging coffee maker in the sinking RMS
Titanic when it hit an iceberg. Tucker believes that there are bigger
problems that have to be solved first before we start focusing our
attention to environmental ones. He says ‘’ our country has a serious
problem, and it’s time to set the pieties of environmental activists
aside” according to Tucker, Bacevich plans are environmental
fanaticism and nothing else.

Annotated bibliographic reference
Rosa Moran/Janny R. 2009, June 22.Google Groups: English 101
Summer2009.

[oc]

Ru
View profile
More options Jun 27, 10:47 pm

On Jun 21, 12:24 pm, Janny R <jannyriv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tucker’s Current Economical Views Analysis
> In Rich Tucker’s January 23, 2008 essay Iceberg economics,he
> mistakenly claims that consumption is the answer for the countries
> economical recovery. Tucker argues that in order for our country to get back to
> its normal economical status it calls for us U.S citizens to keep on consuming on
> a regular day bases like we were before we were in this financial crisis.
> Tucker believes that we should not allow the economical down fall affect our everyday
> spending such as buying gasoline and other imported goods. He also believes
> that stopping the extreme spending year by year on the war and
> environmental wellness are issues that should not be of major concern as this time.
> Tucker’s uses an optimistic outlook on the current economical crises we are
> living in. He says that in order for our economy to recover we need to keep on
> consuming rather than trying to find ways to save a little bite of money on
> every day goods.


Revised by Murua Bullard:
In his January 23,2008 essay, Iceberg Economics, Rick Tuckers
inexplicably suggests that a usual consumption would be the answer to
our countries economical recovery. Tucker, incites that stopping the
extreme spending year by year on the war environmental wellness are
issues that should not be of major concern at this time, in addition
to avoiding the idea of saving a small percentage of money on
everyday
goods.

Annotated bibliography reference:
Janny R/ Murua Bullard, 2009 June 21, Tuckers Current Economical
Views
Analysis.Google Groups: English 101 Summer 2009
The reason I chose this essay is because some points were repeated
unnecessarily, so I took the initiative to reword the beginning
statement.

[Shirley H]

Managuite, Jefferey
English 101
Prof. O'Connell
6/22/09
Essay 1.1
Mother Technology, Grandmother Earth

Growing up in America I feel that technology has taken the place
for 
mother earth and turn mother earth in to a grandmother we never
visit.  Tucker’s argument against Bacevich’s plan to steer the
country 
into a new mindset of being aware of the environment as well
as our 
consuming lifestyle, Tucker however claims his futile efforts
of 
turning off the coffee maker to a sinking ship, meaning our
economy is 
at a recession and our country’s obligations should be
brining the 
economy back into a stable world power again.  Personally
I will have 
to refute against Tucker’s article of “too little, too
late.”  Tucker 
wants the economy as the main priority, our lifestyle
is nothing to be 
ashamed of, and Bacevich’s plan for America is not
enough for an 
improvement to our daily lives.

Revision by Shirley H:
In his January 23, 2009 article, Iceberg Economics, Rich Tucker
erroneously argues against Andrew Bacevich's plan of steering the
country towards a newfound awareness of the deterioration of our
environment along with the detrimental effects of our excessive
consumption lifestyle, as being “too little, too late.” Tucker
describes this idea with the use of a poor analogy of the futility of
turning off a coffee maker while the Titanic is sinking as being
synonymous with trying to save our environment while our country is
suffering a recession. Tucker dismisses Bacevich's plan for America,
stating that it will not create enough of an improvement in our daily
lives, believing instead, that restoring our economy to it's former
stability is our country's primary obligation, and defending our
lifestyle is our main priority; one that we should not be ashamed of.
I believe that Bacevich offers us the correct choice in solving our
current economic crisis. Growing up in America, I feel that technology
has taken the place of Mother Earth, turning her into a grandmother we
never visit; the time has come to revere Mother Earth with the respect
she deserves.

Annotated Bibliography:
Managuite, Jefferey: Jefferey Managuite. 2009, June 26. Mother
Technology, Grandmother Earth. Google Groups: English 101 Summer 2009
I chose this essay because the original work did not clearly convey
that the writer was refuting Tucker's work until the end of the
thesis. It also did not identify the work and date of the essay of
the author being argued against. Some of the sentences did not read
smoothly, and the message of refutation was difficult to discern. I
rewrote the paragraph, clearly citing the article and author being
refuted, that the work was being refuted, and otherwise rewrote the
paragraph, trying to retain some of the original language the writer
used, with the purpose of more effectively communicating the message
that the writer intended.

[Janny R]

The reason why I picked this essay was because I thought that some
senteneces were repeating and were giving the same informaion. I took
away some sentences and placed some sentences in a different order. I
think that it was a little long and I tried to shorten it.

[Rosie]

Farah Laj
English 101
Professor O’Connell
Essay 1.1
6-21-09
Bacevich vs. Tucker: A Great Debate
In Rich Tucker's January 23, 2009 essay, Iceberg economics,
he irrationally criticizes Bacevich’s goals of diminishing costly,
avoidable and
impractical expenses and battling against the predicament of global
warming.
Tucker arrogantly demands that consumption is the primary source to
help
mitigate the recession we are now facing. His argument is
inconsistent
and does
not pertain to the fact that many Americans are unable to expend
their
money at
a time when they need it most for essential, day-to-day needs.
Instead,
decreasing unnecessary spending is the solution to mitigate the
current situation
because it correlates with compensating and redeeming money, which is
extremely urgent, especially in these times.
Rosa Moran
Journal Week 2

Rich Tucker disagrees with Bacevich’s point of view on his January 23,
2009. Tucker feels that America should spend more to help mitigate the
recession as oppose to Bacevich which states that Americans should
leave within their limits. I disagree with Rick Tucker thinking and
agree with Bacevich solution of decreasing spending to save money for
these hard times.
________
I chose this essay because it did not state weather the writer agreed
or didn’t agree with Bacevich view. I was too long to say something
short and sentences were repeated.

Annotated bibliography reference:
Farah Laj. English 101 6-21-09.google groups.

> > Summer2009.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[KunHye S]

Revised:

In Iceberg Economics, his January 23, 2008 editorial, Rich Tucker
delivers a faulty claim that finds consumption as a solution to the
country's economic crisis. Tucker argues that to recover its normal
economic status, the United States needs to promote consumption of the
citizens as they had been before the present crisis.

Janny R. 2009, June 21. Tucker's Current Economical Views Analysis.
Google Groups: English 101 Summer 2009.

I found some grammatic errors and word misusage, and it was similar to
the original example given by the professor.

Original essay:

  Tucker’s Current Economical Views Analysis

         In Rich Tucker’s January 23, 2008 essay Iceberg economics,

[Hyung K]

Original essay:
Bacevich delivers an enthusiastic view on the issues, not only in
contemporary america, but also issues that have been established since
the 60s.What is a powerful and profound argument and examples that
blames a corrupt and disorganized government for starting the roots of
a mammoth crisis. What has led to this apparent and broad crisis are
truly profiligacy, a corrupted and disorganized political system, and
military.

Revised by Hyung:
In the Limits of power by Andrew Bacevich, he delivers an enthusiastic
view on the issues, not only in contemporary America, but also issues
that have been established since the 60s. What is a powerful and
profound argument and examples that blames a corrupt and disorganized
government for starting the roots of a mammoth crisis? What has led to
this apparent and broad crisis are truly profligacy, a corrupted and
disorganized political system, and military?

The reason that I choose this essay is weak of beginning sentence and
I thought need some more clear thesis sentence and reasons why he
agree or disagree with Bacevich.


Isaias Miguel. 2009, June 22. Tucker's Current Economical Views

[IsaiasxD]

how many journals are required to turn in?

I believe there was a journal that extended for two weeks. Our last
one is one that we have to comment on another person's essay?

Please help,

thanks

[IsaiasxD]

Rosa Moran
English 101
Essay 1.2

Original Essay:

In the New York Times, September 14, 2008 article “We Got Trouble”
Jonathan Tepperman asks for specific solutions to specific problems.
Tepperman criticisms expresses that Bacevich sees himself as a
“modern Jeremiah” and that he is more of “a prophet than a policy
maker.” Tepperman states that instead of Bacevich criticizing
Americans
and their consumerism on foreign goods he should focus on how the
economy got this way and how we can set it right with specific
procedures or steps. We need an answer to this specific situation.
Bacevich
states that “to Americans, the essence of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of
happiness centers on a relentless personal quest to acquire, to
consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might
interfere with those endeavors.” That Americans have a motto of
“whoever
has the most toys wins”, “shop until you drop,” “just do it.” And
that this type of attitude has affected the U.S. relations with the
rest of the world, therefore it has “given birth to a condition of
profound dependency.” (With other countries and affecting foreign
policy). Tepperman does agrees that nothing will change if the
“United
States remains dependent on foreign oil, cheap Chinese goods and
infinite credit.”

Revised by : Isaias Miguel

I choose this as because I felt as if the person pretty much
summarized the article “We Got Trouble” in the introduction.
This person bring out everything in the article and puts it into
one single paragraph. This was pretty much what should have been
in the body paragraph to refute against Bacevich. This is not
an introduction to an essay.

Annotated bibliography reference:
Rosa Moran. English 101 6-25-09.google groups.

[angelito]

In his January 23, 2009 essay Iceberg economics, Rich
Tucker wrongly
underestimates Bacevichs’ suggestion to the US about focusing on twin
goals: getting rid of nuclear weapons, and battling global warming.
As stated in the NRDC.org by Author Robert Civiak, a former Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Examiner for the Department of Energy’s
Nuclear weapons Programs, along with major contributions from a
number

revision by Angelito de Guzman

Rich Tucker’s January 23, 2009  essay called “Iceberg Economics”
falsely accused that in order to fix the American economy is to
consume more merchandise in order to get the country’s economy going
again. He stated that in order to get the United State of America to
over come recession is to keep the American life style. To keep
buying 
merchandise that we the American people really don’t need.
Rich 
Tucker also stated that he is not favor on Bacevich opinion
about reducing American nuclear weapon. He said and quote “It’s
difficult to 
see how junking the U.S’s remaining  6,000 or so warhead
(down from 
23,000 at the height of the cold war) is going to convince
people to 
stop buying Ipods and sneakers that are made in china.” He
also is 
against on the fact that the government is spending time on
thinking 
about global warming. He said and quote “Well, like Captain
Smith’s 
coffee maker. It’s the sort of issue we worry about when
things are 
going well, but have little need to be concerned with if
things are 
going poorly.” Basically he suggests that we don’t need to
fear or fix 
global warming right now. He thinks it’s not a big deal.
He wants to 
save the problem for later when the American economy is
back to 
normal. When American is recognize as the richest and the
most 
powerful country in the world again. His points about the
American 
economy is not well thought out he basically said things
what American 
people need to do and what problem is more important to
be deal with 
in this very moment.
>  Tucker, R.2009, Jan 23. Iceberg Economics. Town
> Hall.
> <http://townhall.com/columnists/RichTucker/2009/01/23/
> iceberg_economics?page=full&comments=true>

[JL]

Caroline Dena
English 101

In Rich Tucker’s January 23, 2009 column in Townhall.com,

“Iceberg Economics” he does not full agree with Bacevich book The
Limits of Power. Tucker believes that spending more money is better
for us as dose having nuclear weapons and that global warming is not a
big concern for us. Whereas Bacevich state the opposite of what he
thinks in his book The Limits of Power. I disagree with what Tucker
says is his essay. His essay talks about how turning off the coffee
pot on the Titanic once it has hit the iceberg is not significant. I
believe that spending money is not a good move, global warming is
something that we should be worried about and nuclear weapons are not
so good because of the aftermath.
Revise by JL
English 101
Tucker, R, 2009, Jan. 23 column in Townhall.com, “Iceberg Economics,”
he wrongly suggest his ideas to solve today’s economy recovery. Tucker
claims that our over consumptions could profit us and the global
warming and nuclear weapon cannot be immediate concern for us. He
proposes opposite ideas with Bacevich in “The limits of power.” I
disagree with Tucker’s Idea about the coffee pot on the Titanic
because, our over consumption cannot be the solution for our economy
crisis and the global warming issue needs to be take care of
immediately as well as nuclear weapons.

Saias Miguel
Eng101
6/26/2009

In the New York Times, September 14, 2008 article “We Got Trouble”

Jonathan Tepperman criticizes Bacevich's ideas about his proposal
solution to put an end to this crisis. Tepperman's argument seems
legit but I strongly believe Bacevich's theory about fighting global
warming and other issues here at home are America's top priority.

Revise by JL
English101
E1.2
New York Times, September 14, 2008 in the article “We Got Trouble”
Jonathan Tepperman disapproves of Bacevich’s ideas to recover our
economy crisis but I believe Bacevich’s ideas about the global warming
and other issue here at home should be America’s priority concern
today.

[sun yi]

Sun Yi

Eng 101

 

Week-2-3-research-and-journal

Amer Lafi. 2009, June 26.

Google Groups: English 101 Summer 2009.

 

A valid point by Tepperman, however he goes on to argue to attack Bacevich in attempts to discredit his ideas that even Tepperman agrees with: “…he’s more of
a profit than he is a policy maker.”  This is clearly an unwarranted
attack on the man’s character considering Bacevich isn’t a policy
maker and all he is doing is stating his ideas about what’s wrong with
America today.

Revised by Sun Y

Tepperman mistakenly claims that Bacevich’s suggestions are surprisingly small bore: the United States should live within its means, pursue a more modest foreign policy, act to abolish nuclear weapons and combat global warming. However, he can perceive the situation to the United States in a detached way because he’s not a policy maker. In other words, if this country keeps going to be surrendered to self-gratification and appeal to arms on the foreign policy, we may com down and has no longer in power in this world.   

The reason why I select the essay to revise is that the author’s point is not clear whether she/he is agree or not to the Tepperman in regards to Bacevich’s point of view. And, for the end of the first paragraph, there is no action to do which the author’s contrasting opinion on topic to improve on the second paragraph.

---

From: IsaiasxD <isaiasi...@gmail.com>
To: English 101 summer 09 <english-10...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2009 12:32:09 AM
Subject: Re: weeks-23-research-and-journal의 토론