Final (2) Advocacy Essay

Better Education: Why Teach for America?

The future of education reflects the future of our world. In order for our world to improve; first, our education must improve. A group working towards improving education shares some of the same ideologies as myself and as others in our country and world; this group is called Teach for America. Teach for America is a corps of college graduates that are intensely trained for five weeks and then dedicate two years to teaching in the inner city schools around America. This is no easy task but is indeed a challenge. Some argue that the people in Teach for America are not adequately trained to go into teaching in the toughest schools in the country because of their short crash course. However, Teach for America likes to challenge theses people’s accusations. There are however, some people who are not as optimistic about the future of our youth today and their education. Teach for America recognizes the difficulties of reforming education, has hope for the future, and hopes that putting better qualified teachers in inner city schools will improve the education of today.

Teach for American acknowledges the failure of inner city schools and therefore, has a vision for improving education in the future. They also acknowledge the difficulties of reforming such a major issue in our country. As put in an editorial of the New York Times, “The United States has a long and dishonorable history of dumping the least-qualified teachers into schools that serve poor and minority students” (“Better-Qualified Teachers” Editorial). This is part of the reason as to why inner city schools are lacking quality education. Teach for America recognizes the struggle and difficulties in inner city education and wish to reform it through placing better teachers in these schools. This is why the most passionate and dedicated educators are put and accepted into Teach for America. Teach for America is here to dive into the toughest schools and reform our education. With the passion that these educators have, it seems possible to make slow but important changes in the world of education. This is a daunting task, however, it must be done for our future.

Teach for America’s dream for education in the inner city schools of America is that the schools will meet the highest standards of education. Or at least make steps towards the highest standards of education. This may seem like a far reach but with passion, optimism and the right tools anything is possible. Some may ask what is Teach for America’s dream? The corps vision is that one day all youth in inner city schools will receive the education that they deserve and that is needed. Teach for America’s reasoning for this is that there should be no reason that different people get different qualities of education. Although many times equality for all humankind is forgotten, when it comes to education it should remembered. Letting all have the option of equal education will only benefit our country. All youth in America have the right to the same education, which should be the best education teachers are able to give them. Teach for America’s main goal is to help less fortunate children and to end the achievement gap in education. As Winerip states in his article from the New York Times, A Chose Few Are Teaching for America, “…chance to help poor children and close the achievement gap as major reasons for applying”(Winerip). This illustrates Teach for America’s long-term goal. There is one main objective for Teach for America. This objective is that they want to transform the education around America from poor to superb.

One way in which Teach for America hopes to improve education is by putting better-qualified teachers in the worst and poorest schools. Sometimes the highest qualified teachers prefer to work at the elite and respectable schools rather than at the struggling inner city schools. With this being said, the inner city schools are where the best teachers are needed the most. Typically the better schools get the better teachers and the worse schools get the worse teachers. This is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. This is not to suggest that all the better-qualified teachers should go solely to the struggling inner city schools because they are still needed at the elite schools. There are a handful of highly qualified teachers, which prefer the challenge of teaching at schools that are struggling. Overall, there should be a more equal distribution of better qualified to teachers to work at inner city schools and the elite schools. This is what America needs more of. A New York Times editorial argues that, “In the poorest schools, the better-qualified teachers have driven modest improvements in student achievement”(Better-Qualified Teachers). This is a step in the right direction for America.

For example, in my own personal experience and in the articles of the New York Times a teacher can “make or break” the experience of a student. The student’s success is definitely dependent on the student’s own attitude, however, the attitude of the teacher can also make an impact. Intelligent, qualified and passionate teachers make the best teachers. These are the teachers that make the students want to actually learn and spark curiosity in them. If there were more teachers with theses qualities education in America would be different. This is what Teach for America is striving for. It is shown that better-qualified teachers are wanted in the inner city schools, so that change will happen. As seen in the article, “…the study shows that the city could substantially improve performance in fourth and fifth grade math by hiring more people with strong credentials”(Better-Qualified Teachers). The cities and schools are now recognizing that the higher the credential the teacher has the stronger impact there will be. These teachers would benefit the community greatly if they were placed in inner city schools.

Education is the key to all successes. In our country and world today, our education must be improved. Our world cannot grow until our education grows. Teach for America, is already taking steps to improve the education system in inner city schools around America. Inner city schools are the schools that are struggling the most and need the most help. Teach for America has recognized this struggle. Reforming education is by no means an easy task. However, It is a journey that must be made. Some people doubt Teach for America’s abilities, however, this is fuel for them to keep going strong. Some also believe that reforming the education system of today is next to impossible. The corps, Teach for American acknowledges the failure of inner city schools and therefore, has a vision for improving education through placing better teachers in inner city schools.

Winerip, Michael “A Chosen Few Are Teaching for America”. New York Times. July 12, 2010. Education. Internet.

Editorial. “Better-Qualified Teachers”. New York Times. June 23, 2008. Education. Internet.

Multimodal Proposal

For the multimodal project I plan on writing a narrative essay, or story, and posting pictures that parallel with my story. I will start off by illustrating my first memory of learning how to write, or writing at all. My first memory of writing is around the third and fourth grade. I do not remember anything vividly but I do have some vague memories. Next, I will go into depth on a specific memory I have from the eighth grade which was a defining moment in my writing career. Continuing on I will discuss how my writing changed from the eighth grade to high school. Finally, I will illustrate how all of these aspects have made me the writer that I am today, in college. For my multimodal aspect of the project I am going to use photos. I am very fascinated with photography, this is my reasoning for choosing photos for my multimodal part of the project. I would like to find photos that resemble progress through my life. These are the components that will make up my multimodal project.

Final Advocate/Argument Essay

Better Education With Better Teachers

The future of education reflects the future of our world. I believe that in order for our world to improve; first, our education must improve. A group working towards improving education shares some of the same ideologies as myself and as others in our country and world. This group is called Teach for America. Teach for America is a corps of college graduates that are intensely trained for five weeks and then dedicate two years to teaching in the inner city schools around America. This is no easy task but is indeed a challenge. Some argue that the people in Teach for America are not adequately trained to go into teaching in the toughest schools in the country. However, Teach for America likes to challenge theses people’s accusations. There are however, some people who are not as optimistic about the future of our youth today and their education. Teach for America recognizes the difficulties of reforming education, has hope for the future, and hopes that putting better qualified teachers in inner city schools will improve the education of today.

Teach for American acknowledges the failure of inner city schools and therefore, has a vision for improving education in the future. They also acknowledge the difficulties of reforming such a major issue in our country. As put in an editorial of the New York Times, “The United States has a long and dishonorable history of dumping the least-qualified teachers into schools that serve poor and minority students” (“Better-Qualified Teachers” Editorial). This is part of the reason as to why inner city schools are lacking quality education. Teach for America recognizes the struggle and difficulties in inner city education and wish to reform it through placing better teachers in these schools. This is why the most passionate and dedicated educators are put and accepted into Teach for America. Teach for America is here to dive into the toughest schools and reform our education. With the passion that these educators have, it seems possible to make slow but important changes in the world of education. This is a daunting task, however, it must be done for our future.

Teach for America’s dream for education in the inner city schools of America is that the schools will meet the highest standards of education. Or at least make steps towards the highest standards of education. This may seem like a far reach but with passion, optimism and the right tools anything is possible. Some may ask what is Teach for America’s dream? The corps vision is that one day all youth in inner city schools will receive the education that they deserve and that is needed. Teach for America’s reasoning for this is that there should be no reason that different people get different qualities of education. Although many times equality for all humankind is forgotten, when it comes to education it should remembered. Letting all have the option of equal education will only benefit our country. All youth in America have the right to the same education, which should be the best education teachers are able to give them. Teach for America’s main goal is to help less fortunate children and to end the achievement gap in education. As Winerip states in his article from the New York Times, A Chose Few Are Teaching for America, “…chance to help poor children and close the achievement gap as major reasons for applying”(Winerip). This illustrates Teach for America’s long-term goal. There is one main objective for Teach for America. This objective is that they want to transform the education around America from poor to superb.

One way in which Teach for America hopes to improve education is by putting better-qualified teachers in the worst and poorest schools. Sometimes the highest qualified teachers prefer to work at the elite and respectable schools rather than at the struggling inner city schools. With this being said, the inner city schools are where the best teachers are needed the most. Typically the better schools get the better teachers and the worse schools get the worse teachers. This is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. This is not to suggest that all the better-qualified teachers should go solely to the struggling inner city schools because they are still needed at the elite schools. There are a handful of highly qualified teachers, which prefer the challenge of teaching at schools that are struggling. Overall, there should be a more equal distribution of better qualified to teachers to work at inner city schools and the elite schools. This is what America needs more of. A New York Times editorial argues that, “In the poorest schools, the better-qualified teachers have driven modest improvements in student achievement”(Better-Qualified Teachers). This is a step in the right direction for America. For example, in my own personal experience and in the articles of the New York Times a teacher can “make or break” the experience of a student. The student’s success is definitely dependent on the student’s own attitude, however, the attitude of the teacher can also make an impact. Intelligent, qualified and passionate teachers make the best teachers. These are the teachers that make the students want to actually learn and spark curiosity in them. If there were more teachers with theses qualities education in America would be different. This is what Teach for America is striving for. It is shown that better-qualified teachers are wanted in the inner city schools, so that change will happen. As seen in the article, “…the study shows that the city could substantially improve performance in fourth and fifth grade math by hiring more people with strong credentials”(Better-Qualified Teachers). The cities and schools are now recognizing that the higher the credential the teacher has the stronger impact there will be. These teachers would benefit the community greatly if they were placed in inner city schools.
Education is the key to all successes. In our country and world today, our education must be improved.

Our world cannot grow until our education grows. Teach for America, is already taking steps to improve the education system in inner city schools around America. Inner city schools are the schools that are struggling the most and need the most help. Teach for America has recognized this struggle. Reforming education is by no means an easy task. However, It is a journey that must be made. Some people doubt Teach for America’s abilities, however, this is fuel for them to keep going strong. Some also believe that reforming the education system of today is next to impossible. The corps, Teach for American acknowledges the failure of inner city schools and therefore, has a vision for improving education through placing better teachers in inner city schools.

Winerip, Michael “A Chosen Few Are Teaching for America”. New York Times. July 12, 2010. Education. Internet.

Editorial. “Better-Qualified Teachers”. New York Times. June 23, 2008. Education. Internet.

</pre

Advocate/Argument Essay

 

The future of education deciphers the future of our world. I believe that in order for our world to improve; first, our education must improve. I am not the only one with this philosophy towards education. A group working towards improving education shares some of the same ideologies as myself and as others in our country and world. This group is called Teach for America. Teach for America is a corps of college graduates that are intensely trained for five weeks and then dedicate two years to teaching in the inner city schools around America. This is no easy task but is indeed a challenge. Some argue that the people in Teach for America are not adequately trained to go into teaching in the toughest schools in the country. However, Teach for America likes to challenge other people’s accusations. Teach for America is striving to improve the education of the inner city youth, so that there may be a bright future.  There are however, some people who are not as optimistic about the future of our youth today and their education. Hence, Teach for American acknowledges the failure of inner city schools and therefore, has a vision for improving education in the future.

Teach for America recognizes the failure of the education system in the inner city schools of today. They also acknowledge the difficulties of reforming such a major issue in our country. As put in an editorial of the New York Times, “The United States has a long and dishonorable history of dumping the least-qualified teachers into schools that serve poor and minority students” (“Better-Qualified Teachers” Editorial). This is part of the reason as to why inner city schools are lacking quality education. The teachers of Teach for America have seen the lack of quality education in the inner city schools and decided to take matters into their own hands. Therefore, Teach for America was created. The teachers in this corps recognize the difficulty of changing the quality of education in America. This is why the most passionate and dedicated educators are put and accepted into Teach for America. Teach for America is here to dive into the toughest schools and reform our education. With the passion that these educators have, it seems possible to make slow but important changes in the world of education. This is a daunting task, however, it must be done for our future.

Teach for America’s dream for education in the inner city schools of America is that the schools will meet the highest standards of education. Or at least make steps towards the highest standards of education. This may seem like a far reach but with passion, optimism and the right tools anything is possible. Some may ask what is Teach for America’s dream? The corps vision is that one day all youth in inner city schools will receive the education that they deserve and that is needed. Teach for America’s reasoning for this is that there should be no reason that different people get different qualities of education. All youth in America have the right to the same education, which should be the best education teachers are able to give them. Teach for America’s main goal is to help less fortunate children and to end the achievement gap in education. As Winerip states in his article from the New York Times, A Chose Few Are Teaching for America, “…chance to help poor children and close the achievement gap as major reasons for applying”(Winerip). This illustrates Teach for America’s long-term goal. There is one main objective for Teach for America. This objective is that they want to transform the education around America from poor to superb.

One way in which Teach for America hopes to improve education is by putting better-qualified teachers in the worst and poorest schools. Sometimes the highest qualified teachers prefer to work at the elite and respectable schools rather than at the struggling inner city schools. With this being said, the inner city schools are where the best teachers are needed the most. Typically the better schools get the better teachers and the worse schools get the worse teachers. This is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. There are a handful of highly qualified teachers, which prefer the challenge of teaching at schools that are struggling. This is what America needs more of. An editorial argues that, “In the poorest schools, the better-qualified teachers have driven modest improvements in student achievement”(Better-Qualified Teachers). This is a step in the right direction for America. For example, in my own personal experience and in the articles of the New York Times a teacher can “make or break” the experience of a student. The student’s success is definitely dependent on the student’s own attitude, however, the attitude of the teacher can also make an impact. Intelligent, qualified and passionate teachers make the best teachers. These are the teachers that make the students want to actually learn and spark curiosity in them. If there were more teachers with theses qualities education in America would be different. This is what Teach for America is striving for. It is shown that better-qualified teachers are wanted in the inner city schools, so that change will happen. As seen in the article, “…the study shows that the city could substantially improve performance in fourth and fifth grade math by hiring more people with strong credentials”(Better-Qualified Teachers). The cities and schools are now recognizing that the higher the credential the teacher has the stronger impact there will be. These teachers would benefit the community greatly if they were placed in inner city schools.

Education is the key to all successes. In our country and world today, our education must be improved. Our world cannot grow until our education improves. A corps, Teach for America, is already taking steps to improve the education system in inner city schools around America. Inner city schools are the schools that are struggling the most and need the most help. Teach for America has recognized this struggle. Reforming education is by no means an easy task. However, It is a journey that must be made. The corps Teach for American acknowledges the failure of inner city schools and therefore, has a vision for improving education in the future.

 

Winerip, Michael “A Chosen Few Are Teaching for America”. New York Times. July 12, 2010. Education. Internet.

 

Editorial. “Better-Qualified Teachers”. New York Times. June 23, 2008. Education. Internet.

Final Revised Textual Analysis

“Hand-Holding Across the Aisle”

It has been said that opposites attract. As cheesy as that may sound, it happens to the best of us. People are attracted to what they do not have and to what they want. Opposites in a relationship can be a variety of things, including opposites of opinion when it comes to politics. Having a partner who contrasts you has its positive and negative aspects. Aimee Lee Ball illustrates how politically odd couples survive their relationships, and that it is possible for people to learn to live and love the positive and negative aspects of their partner

Aimee Lee Ball taps into the lives of couples that have the exact opposite political ideologies from one another. It has been proven that opposites attract when referring to intimate relationships. There are many kinds of differences in relationships. As Ball states in the article, “Opposites attract, unquestionably; there are peaceable, unpredictable couplings of carnivores and vegetarians, dog lovers and cat lovers, spendthrifts and cheapskates. But politics can make people apoplectic…”(2). This point has been proven again with Ball’s article on relationships where each partner is of the opposite political party. Politically odd couples make outsiders question their ability to thrive. A relationship like this encourages curiosity. Just because someone from the Democratic Party is in a relationship with someone from the Republican Party does not mean that they will be converted to the Republican Party. People in political odd relationships still stand their ground and stay true to their beliefs, but still they do not ridicule their partner. However, the topic of politics can get heated between anyone. Couples that are not of the same political party learn to cope with their differences just as any other couple does.

Ball goes in depth on how the couples deal with this dramatic difference in their political opinion by getting to know the couples. Although opposites attract, sometimes there are conflicts that must be acknowledged. Politically odd couples face these conflicts just like any other couple would. Politics have always raised issues amongst people, even if they are not in a relationship. Politics can be a very touchy subject and has the ability to make people irate if someone is challenging their opinion or belief. Conflicts in relationships can range from a variety of issues. As Ball argues in the article, “Differ on Woody Allen? Art? Opera? That’s easy to cope with. But differ on whether to invade Iraq or tax the rich? Then it’s a matter of deep-seated values”(2). Someone’s political opinion is based on his or her values and what they think is vital. Couples in political odd relationships admit to having huge fights at times. This is natural to defend ones beliefs and bash another’s. After these fights, Jeanne Safer, a Democrat acknowledges that her husband, a Republican, is not responsible for what happens in the Republican offices (2). Safer understand that it is how her husband treats her and acts towards her that is most important and not his political party. Some couples such as Jeanne Safer and Richard Brookhiser have certain topics that are completely off limits for conversation. Many political odd couples decide that their partner’s politics are less important than other issues that are present in their lives. When a spouse shows their significant other love and attention constantly it overpowers their poor taste in political parties. Individuals in this type of a relationship must do a lot of mental work so that they do not “bop their partner on the nose”(2). A wife from another couple has her own way of dealing with her husband’s political ideologies. Ms. Taddeo tells Ball; “I just take everything he says with several huge grains of salt, preferably on the edge of a margarita”(2).  This means that Ms. Taddeo is listening to her husband but is not entirely believing or retaining the information given to her. Adding on the part of the margarita implies that listening to her husband can be unbearable at times and makes her “want a drink”. Another couple, Carol and Joseph McLaughlin had a twist in their relationship. Mr. and Ms. McLaughlin were married in 1966. Carol knew who she was marrying and loved the man and his political opinions. However, this all changed in 1967 just a short while after the couple got married. Ms. McLaughlin’s love for Mr. McLaughlin did not change but her love for his stance on politics did. In 1967 Mr. McLaughlin changed his registration to the Republican Party. Ms. McLaughlin thought that she had married a Democrat, yet that did not remain true. The McLaughlin’s have their own way of coping with this dramatic switch; they use humor. Mr. McLaughlin has a great sense of humor which can be thanked for their lasting marriage. These are the ways in which some couples cope with their different political beliefs.

Ball’s purpose is to get to know the couples in order to explore how couples with such different ideas can still thrive in their relationship. In many relationships each partner will have differences with the other. These differences could be anything the imagination can think of. When it comes to political differences in relationships that is when the going gets tough. Through this article Ball gets to know several couples and what their lives are like being with someone from another political party. The first couple introduced was Mr. Goldfield and Ms. Mannion. The two have been married for thirteen years. Mr. Goldfield is now seen as the “token conservative”. The next couple discussed was a Democrat Jeanne Safer and her Republican husband Richard Brookhiser. After this couple was the couple Ms. Edgar and Mr. Sussman. The fourth couple was Mr. and Ms. Taddeo. The last couple talked about is Mr. and Ms. McLaughlin. These are all valid ways of coping with issues; each couple chooses their preferred ways to do so. In addition to simply coping with living with someone who had the exact opposite viewpoints as you, some people’s views are altered. A spouse will sometimes recognize that the other side is not completely evil or clueless, and maybe there is some common ground between the parties. Each couple has their own ways in with they cope with the differences between them and their partner.

Aimee Lee Ball’s intended audience is the intellectual men and women who are in relationships with someone of the opposite political party. Typically the people who read the New York Times are the well educated and middle to upper class of America. The article “Hand-Holding Across the Aisle” written by Aimee Lee Ball targeted a particular audience. The article might even be targeting women more than men because it was in the Sunday Styles section of the Sunday New York Times paper. This section would typically attract more women readers than men readers. Therefore, Ball’s intended audience is primarily the well educated women of America’s upper class who are in politically odd relationships.

“Could I really date a Republican?”(2), asks a Democrat from New York City. This is a question that many people ask themselves when entering a politically odd relationship. There is the saying that opposites attract. Some do not believe so. However, this saying has been proven correct in Ball’s article. Ball interviewed several couples in which each partner was a part of the opposite political party. Through her article Ball illustrates how the couples cope with their significant other. This article proves that it is possible to share love with someone who is for a different political party than one’s self.

Ball, Aimee Lee. “Hand-Holding Across the Aisle” New York Times. September 26, 2010. Sunday ed: Sunday Style. 2. Print.

 

 

Proposal

An issue that I am very interested in is education and poverty and how the two go hand in hand. Education and poverty are both dependent on one another. When someone is impoverished it is harder to go to a respected school because they have less money. However, the key to escaping poverty is education. In our country and over seas I do not believe that everyone has been given equal opportunities for a good education. My overall stance on education is that everyone is entitled to receive an education no matter what. There are places in the middle east and other countries where girls are or were not allowed to receive an education. There are places around this country where not all are able to receive a proper education. There are definitely places where students are receiving an “education” but it is not necessarily the best one, or even benefitting them at all. I know that in Oakland, California, there are terrible public schools so some students will go to private schools. However, some private schools cost a lot of money and not everyone is able to pay for such private schools. Hence, their only choices are to go to a not so good public school or no school at all. I am very passionate about the issues of poverty and education and how they are dependent on one another. Because of this passion I have decided to make my career being a teacher at an inner city elementary school. I want to do this kind of work so I can face these issues head on.

Final Textual Analysis

“Hand-Holding Across the Aisle”

It has been said that opposites attract. As cheesy as that may sound, it happens to the best of us. People are attracted to what they do not have and to what they want. Opposites in a relationship can be a variety of things, including opposites of opinion when it comes to politics. Having a partner who contrasts you has its positive and negative aspects. Aimee Lee Ball illustrates how political odd couples survive their relationships and that it is possible People learn to live and love these ups and downs, as they love their partner.

Aimee Lee Ball taps into the lives of couples that have the exact opposite political ideologies from one another. It has been proven that opposites attract when referring to intimate relationships. There are many different kinds of differences in relationships. As Ball states in the article, “Opposites attract, unquestionably; there are peaceable, unpredictable couplings of carnivores and vegetarians, dog lovers and cat lovers, spendthrifts and cheapskates. But politics can make people apoplectic…”(2). This point has been proven again with Ball’s article on relationships where each partner is of the opposite political party. Political odd couples make outsiders question their ability to thrive. A relationship like this encourages curiosity. Just because someone from the Democratic Party is in a relationship with someone from the Republican Party does not mean that they will be converted to the Republican Party. People in political odd relationships still stand their ground and believe what they please, but still they do not ridicule their partner. However, speaking politics can get heated between anyone. Couples that are not of the same political party learn to cope with their differences just as any other couple does.

Ball goes in depth on how the couples deal with this dramatic difference in their political opinion. Although opposites attract, sometimes there are conflicts that must be acknowledged. Political odd couples face these conflicts just like any other couple would. Politics have always raised issues amongst people, even if they are not in a relationship. Politics can be a very touchy subject and has the ability to make people irate if someone is challenging their opinion or belief. Conflicts in relationships can range from a variety of issues. As Ball says in the article, “Differ on Woody Allen? Art? Opera? That’s easy to cope with. But differ on whether to invade Iraq or tax the rich? Then it’s a matter of deep-seated values”(2). Someone’s political opinion is based on his or her values and what they think is vital. Couples in political odd relationships admit to having huge fights at times. This is natural to defend ones beliefs and bash another’s. After these fights, Jeanne Safer, a Democrat acknowledges that her husband, a Republican, is not responsible for what happens in the Republican offices (2). Safer understand that it is how her husband treats her and acts towards her that is most important and not his political party.

Some couples such as Jeanne Safer and Richard Brookhiser have certain topics that are completely off limits for conversation. Many political odd couples decide that their partner’s politics are less important than other issues that are present in their lives. When a spouse shows their significant other love and attention constantly it overpowers their poor taste in political parties. Individuals in this type of a relationship must do a lot of mental work so that they do not “bop their partner on the nose”(2). A wife from another couple has her own way of dealing with her husband’s political ideologies. Ms. Taddeo tells Ball; “I just take everything he says with several huge grains of salt, preferably on the edge of a margarita”(2).  This means that Ms. Taddeo is listening to her husband but is not entirely believing or retaining the information given to her. Adding on the part of the margarita implies that listening to her husband can be unbearable at times and makes her “want a drink”. Another couple, Carol and Joseph McLaughlin had a twist in their relationship. Mr. and Ms. McLaughlin were married in 1966. Carol knew who she was marrying and loved the man and his political opinions. However, this all changed in 1967 just a short while after the couple got married. Ms. McLaughlin’s love for Mr. McLaughlin did not change but her love for his stance on politics did. In 1967 Mr. McLaughlin changed his registration to the Republican Party. Ms. McLaughlin thought that she had married a Democrat, yet that did not remain true. The McLaughlin’s have their own way of coping with this dramatic switch; they use humor. Mr. McLaughlin has a great sense of humor which can be thanked for their lasting marriage. These are the ways in which some couples cope with their different political beliefs.

Ball’s purpose is to get to know the couples in order to explore how couples with such different ideas can still thrive in their relationship. In many relationships each partner will have differences with the other. These differences could be anything the imagination can think of. When it comes to political differences in relationships that is when the going gets tough. Through this article Ball gets to know several couples and what their lives are like being with someone from another political party. The first couple introduced was Mr. Goldfield and Ms. Mannion. The two have been married for thirteen years. Mr. Goldfield is now seen as the “token conservative”. The next couple discussed was a Democrat Jeanne Safer and her Republican husband Richard Brookhiser. After this couple was the couple Ms. Edgar and Mr. Sussman. The fourth couple was Mr. and Ms. Taddeo. The last couple talked about is Mr. and Ms. McLaughlin. These are all valid ways of coping with issues; each couple chooses their preferred ways to do so. In addition to simply coping with living with someone who had the exact opposite viewpoints as you, some people’s views are altered. A spouse will sometimes recognize that the other side is not completely evil or clueless, and maybe there is some common ground between the parties. Each of these couples copes with the conflicts in their relationships due to politics in different ways.

Aimee Lee Ball’s intended audience are the intellectual men and women who are in relationships with someone of the opposite political party. Typically the people who read the New York Times are the well educated and middle to upper class of America. The article “Hand-Holding Across the Aisle” written by Aimee Lee Ball targeted a particular audience. The article might even be targeting women more than men because it was in the Sunday Styles section of the Sunday New York Times paper. This section would typically attract more women readers than men readers. Therefore, Ball’s intended audience is primarily the well educate women of America’s upper class who are in political odd relationships.

“Could I really date a Republican?”(2), asks a Democrat from New York City. This is a question that many people ask themselves when entering a political odd relationship. There is the saying that opposites attract. Some do not believe so. However, this saying has been proven correct in Ball’s article. Ball interviewed several couples in which each partner was a part of the opposite political party. Through her article Ball illustrates how the couples cope with their significant other. This article proves that it is possible to share love with someone who is for a different political party than ones self.

Ball, Aimee Lee. “Hand-Holding Across the Aisle” New York Times. September 26, 2010. Sunday ed: Sunday Style. 2. Print.

Textual Analysis

“Hand-Holding Across the Aisle”

It has been said that opposites attract. We, as human beings find someone who is unlike ourselves so that we now feel complete with our spouse in our lives. As cheesy as that may sound, it happens to the best of us. People are attracted to what they do not have and to what they want. Opposites in a relationship can be a variety of things including opposites of opinion when it comes to politics. Having a partner who contrasts you has its positive and negative aspects. People learn to live and love these ups and downs, as they love their partner.

Aimee Lee Ball taps into the lives of couples that have the exact opposite political ideologies. It has been proven that opposites attract when referring to intimate relationships. As Ball states, “Opposites attract, unquestionably; there are peaceable, unpredictable couplings of carnivores and vegetarians, dog lovers and cat lovers, spendthrifts and cheapskates. But politics can make people apoplectic…”(2). This point has been proven again with Ball’s article on relationships with each partner being of the opposite political party. Political odd couples make outsiders question their ability to thrive. A relationship like this encourages curiosity. Just because someone from the Democratic Party marries or is in a relationship with someone from the Republican Party does not mean that they will be converted to the Republican Party. People in political odd relationships still stand their ground and believe what they please, but they do not ridicule their partner. However, speaking politics can get heated. Couples that are not of the same political party learn to cope with their differences just as any other couple does.

Ball goes in depth on how the couples cope with this dramatic difference in their political opinion. Although opposites attract, sometimes there are conflicts that must be acknowledged. Political odd couples face these conflicts just like any other couple would. Politics have always raised issues amongst people, even if they are not in a relationship. Politics can be a touchy subject and make people irate if someone is challenging their opinion or belief from the opposite political party. As Ball says in the article, “Differ on Woody Allen? Art? Opera? That’s easy to cope with. But differ on whether to invade Iraq or tax the rich? Then it’s a matter of deep-seated values”(2). Someone’s political opinion is based on his or her values and what they think is vital. Couples in political odd relationships admit to having huge fights at times. This is natural to defend ones beliefs and bash another’s. After these fights, Jeanne Safer, a Democrat acknowledges that her husband is not responsible for what happens in the Republican offices (2). Safer understand that it is how her husband treats her and acts towards her that is most important and not his political party. Some couples such as Jeanne Safer and Richard Brookhiser have certain topics that are off limits for conversation. Many couples with opposite political parties decide that their partner’s politics are less important than other issues that are present in their lives. When a spouse shows their significant other love and attention constantly it overpowers their poor taste in political parties. Individuals in this type of a relationship must do a lot of mental work so that they do not “bop their partner on the nose”(2). A wife from another couple has her own way of dealing with her husband’s political ideologies. Ms. Taddeo tells Ball’s; “I just take everything he says with several huge grains of salt, preferably on the edge of a margarita”(2).  This means that Ms. Taddeo is listening to her husband but is not entirely believing or retaining the information given to her. Adding on the part of the margarita implies that listening to her husband can be unbearable at times and makes her want a drink. One couple, Carol and Joseph McLaughlin had a twist in their relationship. Mr. and Ms. McLaughlin were married in 1966. Carol knew who she was marrying and loved the man and his political opinions. However, this all changed in 1967 just a short while after they got married. Ms. McLaughlin’s love for Mr. McLaughlin did not change but her love for his stance on politics did. In 1967 Mr. McLaughlin changed his registration to the Republican Party. Ms. McLaughlin thought that she had married a Democrat, yet that did not remain true. The McLaughlin’s have their own way of coping with this dramatic switch; they use humor. Mr. McLaughlin has a great sense of humor which can be thanked for their lasting marriage. These are the ways in which these couples cope with their different political beliefs.

Ball’s purpose is to get to know the couples in order to explore how couples with such different ideas can still thrive in their relationship. In many relationships each partner will differences with the other. These differences could be anything the imagination can think of. When it comes to political differences in relationships that is when the going gets tough. Through this article Ball gets to know several couples and what their lives are like being with someone from another political party. The first couple introduced was Mr. Goldfield and Ms. Mannion. The two have been married for thirteen years. Mr. Goldfield is now seen as the “token conservative”. The next couple discussed was a Democrat Jeanne Safer and her Republican husband Richard Brookhiser. After this couple was the couple Ms. Edgar and Mr. Sussman. The fourth couple was Mr. and Ms. Taddeo. The last couple talked about is MR. and Ms. McLaughlin. Taddeo. These are all valid ways of coping with issues; each couple chooses their preferred ways to do so. In addition to simply coping with living with someone who had the exact opposite viewpoints as you, some people’s views were altered. A spouse will sometimes recognize that the other side is not completely evil or clueless, and maybe there is some common ground between the parties. Each of these couples copes with the conflicts in their relationships due to politics in different ways.

Aimee Lee Ball’s intended audience are the intellectual men and women who are in relationships with someone of the opposite political party. Typically the people who read the New York Times are the well educated and middle to upper class of America. The article “Hand-Holding Across the Aisle” written by Aimee Lee Ball targeted a particular audience. The article might even be targeting women more than men because it was in the Sunday Style section of the Sunday New York Times paper. This section would typically attract more women readers than men readers. Therefore, Ball’s intended audience is primarily the well educate women of America’s upper class.

“Could I really date a Republican?”(2), asks a Democrat from New York City. There is the saying that opposites attract. Some do not believe so. However, this saying has been proven correct in Ball’s article. Ball interviewed several couples in which each partner was a part of the opposite political party. Through her article Ball found out how the couples cope with their significant other.

Ball, Aimee Lee. “Hand-Holding Across the Aisle” New York Times. September 26, 2010. Sunday ed: Sunday Style. 2. Print.

Can the Fed Offer a Reason to Cheer?

“Can the Fed Offer a Reason to Cheer?”

Cowen, Tyler. “Can the Fed Offer a Reason to Cheer?”. The New York Times, September 18, 2010, ed: 5

Cowen argues that a shortage of optimism is mainly to blame for the stall in the United States economy. Cowen supports his argument by stating that if the Fed makes people believe that it is sincerely dedicated to increasing the rate of inflation then there would be more optimism in the people and therefore; a greater economy. Cowen states that we must believe in order to see problems solved and a change in our economy. Cowen’s intended audience is the economists of today and those worried and skeptical of our economy.

NYT “For Blacks, Progress In Happiness”

Leonhardt, David. “For Blacks, Progress In Happiness”. The New York Times,            September 15, 2010, National Edition: B1+B12

Leonhardt argues that African-Americans have made progress in a specific realm, happiness. Leonhardt compares and contrasts African-American and Caucasian income from 1975 to the present and how it parallels to both races. Leonhardt discusses the issue of income, race and happiness in order to inform his audience on how the three components intertwine. David Leonhardt’s intended audience is the African-Americans of today.