Homework for 5-15-18:
Write a 3-paragraph essay that supports or refutes Martin Luther King's claim in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that civil disobedience is justified.
Final Exam
Blue Book Exam done in two parts for Week 16, June 5 and June 7: In a 4- or 5-paragraph essay, develop a thesis that explains how Megan Phelps-Roper overcame the "The Backfire Effect" and freed herself from the family religious cult that raised her. To develop this thesis you must read the essay “Unfollow” by Adrian Chen and “The Backfire Effect” from The Oatmeal.
Essay #5, Your Capstone Essay worth 225 points Due May 31
You must have 3 sources for your MLA Works Cited.
Option One. In the context of the Netflix documentary Dirty Money, Episode #2, "Payday," write an argumentative essay that answers the question: Were Scott Tucker and his associates fairly prosecuted or did the government overreach its powers and exact unjust punishment on these allegedly greedy businessmen? Be sure to have a counterargument section. For your required 3 sources, you can use the documentary, the Vulture review, and the Atlantic review.
Option Two. In the context of the Netflix documentary Dirty Money, Episode #1, "Hard Nox," support, refute, or complicate the assertion that in spite of Volkswagen's 30 billion dollars paid in fines and legal fees for committing fraud and other crimes, that their ascent in the world economy is evidence that Volkswagen, as an agency of unbridled corporate greed, has triumphed over the wheels of justice. Be sure to have a counterargument section. For your required 3 sources, you can use the documentary, the Vulture review, and the Atlantic review.
Option Three. In the context of the essays in Chapter 10, defend, refute, or complicate the assertion that young people should be required to perform public service.
Option Four. Defend, refute, or complicate Martin Luther King’s justification of civil disobedience in his essay “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (309)
Option Five. In the context of the online essay “Anti-Vaxxers: Enjoying the Privilege of Putting Everyone at Risk” by Jeb Lund, support, defend, or complicate the assertion that the vaccination crisis results largely from the hubris of white privilege. You can refer to the John Oliver video on vaccinations.
Option Six. In the context of “The War on Stupid People” by David H. Freedman, support, refute, or complicate the notion that society places misplaced admiration for intelligent people.
Option Seven. Support, defend, or refute the notion that college debt should be forgiven.
Option Eight. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that college should be free.
For context, see Chapter 11 in your book. Also consult the following:
Forgiving All Student Loan Debt Would be an Awful, Regressive Idea The Problem with Public Colleges Going Tuition-Free
Final Exam
Blue Book Exam done in two parts for Week 16, June 5 and June 7: In a 4- or 5-paragraph essay, develop a thesis that explains how Megan Phelps-Roper overcame the "The Backfire Effect" and freed herself from the family religious cult that raised her. To develop this thesis you must read the essay “Unfollow” by Adrian Chen and “The Backfire Effect” from The Oatmeal.
The Case of Scott Tucker and Timothy Muir
Option One. In the context of the Netflix documentary Dirty Money, Episode #2, "Payday," write an argumentative essay that answers the question: Were Scott Tucker and his associates fairly prosecuted or did the government overreach its powers and exact unjust punishment on these allegedly greedy businessmen? Be sure to have a counterargument section. For your required 3 sources, you can use the documentary, the Vulture review, and the Atlantic review.
Update on Scott Tucker Sentencing in Bloomberg.
Sample Thesis #1
It was painful to watch Scott Tucker and Timothy Muir, unrepentant frauds, issue sociopathic responses to their being arrested for committing fraud and against millions of Americans. They are full of righteous outrage over the way they're being treated, yet show no remorse for the way they ruined millions of Americans' lives. Regarding the question if the government prosecuted them in proportionate measure or not, I can say with clear eyes that they got what they deserved. The evidence is clear that these con men violated racketeering laws, committed wire fraud, and performed money laundering all in the service of exploiting well over 4.5 millions Americans.
Sample Thesis #2
The above thesis should scare us all. The writer is giving the government overreaching powers and not clearly stating Scott Tucker's legal business plan. For one, as Scott Tucker and Timothy Muir attest convincingly, they used the same business "playbook" that many businesses have used legally before them. Second, Scott Tucker never should be responsible for the "money bag" memo, which was created by a manager operating independently of Tucker who makes the strong case that he was "on the tech side of things." Third, Scott Tucker created a loan system that was quick and easy, evidenced by repeat customers. Fourth, the government had no reason to show up to Tucker and Muir's homes with SWAT teams and drawn guns. The whole case is a travesty and shows that the prosecuting attorneys abused their powers because they were jealous of two clever businessmen who created a smart, successful business.
Sample Thesis #3
The above thesis is so disconnected from reality I don't know where to begin, but I will try. Let me first concede that I saw no reason for drawn guns. But my agreement with these predators ends there. Now where I disagree: For one, the "playbook" Muir and Tucker used was one of deception and subterfuge for which there is no precedent. Secondly, Tucker, it was shown in court, was responsible for the "money bag" memo and his sociopathic denial of responsibility does not negate that fact. For three, Tucker has no evidence of "repeat customers." To the contrary, the customers we hear on tape are understandably exasperated, full of rage, and ranting that their lives are being ruined. Their testimony speaks to the "product" Tucker was serving was something that can only be described with an expletive not appropriate for a college essay. That Tucker will spend close to 17 years behind bars and must pay 1.3 billion dollars in restitution is fair, and I can only hope other predators with similar designs will be deterred by the government's rigorous prosecution of this criminal enterprise.
"The Case for Service" by Peter Levine
The Problem
We are self-insulated.
We are zombied-out on our smartphones.
We are dissolving in a pool of narcissism.
Our social isolation is a maladaptation for social evolution and individual success in careers, which require engagement, cooperation, social skills, and the value of sacrifice.
Our country is dire need of road improvement, housing for the poor, and general infrastructure. In other words, we need something to fill the gap left from our current government and private enterprises.
The Solution
According to Levine, we need government-funded service to help build communities and offer higher education to young people.
One. Why are social programs a moral vehicle?
Because, Levine, observes that service programs "regard individuals as potential public assets, as contributors to the common good."
Two. What is Kant's Kingdom of Ends as it pertains to treating us like "public assets"?
According to Levine, we assume a certain dignity and respect of people's moral agency and capacity for responsibility, and we must therefore create societies that maximize people's moral agency.
Such a philosophy is at odds with Hobbes who saw the human race as brutes and barbarians who needed fear and rule of law to restrain their wildness.
In other words, mandatory public service is based on an optimistic view of human nature.
Individuals become public assets.
The above sounds nice and lofty, but can the idea that we are "public assets" be used to bully and control us? Keep that question in mind for counterarguments or outright refutation of Levine's thesis.
Three. Why does public service help curb crime?
Levine makes the claim that when juveniles help the community there is less antisocial and criminal behavior. Even teen pregnancy is reduced, according to some studies.
However, most benefits observed from public service are from affluent schools.
It appears there may be an element of economic stability needed to make the case for service useful. In a society suffering from structural inequality where the 1% continues to have more and more while the underclass suffers more and more, can we really impose mandatory universal service on Americans? Consider this for counterarguments or outright rejection of Levine's thesis.
Four. Do you think the government would fund universal mandatory public service on a scale that would make it meaningful for all Americans?
According to Bruce Chapman, author of "A Bad Idea Whose Time Is Past: The Case Against Universal Service," each public service worker would cost $30,000. Is the government this committed? Is this even realistic? Chapman writes:
The $20,000 per involuntary volunteer estimated by Litan is too low. The more realistic total figure would be more like $27,000 to $30,000. First, the federal cost for a full-time AmeriCorps member is about $16,000, according to AmeriCorps officials. And that, recall, is for an average 10-month stint, so add another $3,000 or so for a 12-month term of service. (The $10,000 figure cited by Litan appears to average the cost of part-time volunteers with that of full-time volunteers.) Giving the involuntary volunteers the AmeriCorps education benefit of some $4,000 brings the total to about $23,000 of federal contribution for the full-time, one-year participant, which, with local or private match, will easily reach a total cost of some $30,000. Few unskilled young people just out of school make that in private employment!
Because organized compulsion costs more than real volunteering, however, the indirect expenses for governments would be still greater. Chief among these are the hidden financial costs of universal national service to the economy in the form of forgone labor. That problem plagued the old draft and would be more acute now. The United States has suffered a labor shortage for most of the past two decades, with the dearth of educated and trained labor especially serious. Yet universal service advocates want to pluck out of the employment ranks some 4 million people a year and apply a command-and-control approach to their optimal use. How can we even calculate the waste?
Litan says that in 1995 the GAO “positively evaluated” a cost-benefit study of three AmeriCorps programs that found them to produce quantifiable monetary benefits of $1.68 to $2.58 for every dollar invested. But Litan overstates the GAO’s “positive evaluation” of the private study’s findings. The GAO study merely analyzes the methodology of the private study based on the assumptions that are baked into it. These assumptions (of future benefits and their dollar values) are inherently “problematic,” based as they are on “projected data.” And neither the GAO nor the private study whose methodology it checked says anything about the applicability of the private study to some universal service program. Inferring GAO endorsement for some putative financial benefits from a national service scheme—let alone a program of compulsory national service—is not good economics.
"Serve or Fail" by Dave Eggers
One. How does Eggers provide qualifiers on the notion of universal mandatory service?
He limits the mandatory service to college students, and he exempts community college students. He writes that mandatory service "probably wouldn't be feasible, for example, for community college students, who tend to be transient and who generally have considerable family and work demands."
For the rest of college students, however, Eggers recommends one year of service, a student's junior year, so that college is only three years long because, as Eggers says, "college is too long." He thinks it should be 3 years, not 4 years, for a bachelors.
As an aside, college want to keep the 4-year-plan because that means more money.
Two. Do you find Eggers' pared down, "flexible" service proposition more realistic than Levine's?
Explain.
"The Case Against Universal National Service" by Conor Friedersdorf
"A Bad Idea Whose Time Is Past: The Case Against Universal Service" by Bruce Chapman
Sample Thesis Statements
Thesis #1
Mandatory service imposed on United States citizens sounds like a do-gooder's brainchild, a shibboleth or chimera in some future utopia, but let's get back into the real world: In a society beleaguered by a growing class of overworked, underpaid citizens beholden to the Privileged 1%, the plea for universal mandatory service is absurd for many reasons, not the least of which a lack of money, a lack of tax payers willing to fund such a quixotic enterprise, the ability for many to wiggle their way out of service through the inevitable loopholes and other opportunities for subterfuge and trickery, and perhaps most of all the plan's failure to acknowledge that America needs to fix structural inequality before it can impose such service duty on a citizenry that is struggling to make ends meet.
Thesis #2
Regarding the gentleman's objections to mandatory universal service as stated above, it is precisely because we have so any hopeless, disenfranchised people that we need to inject them with the hope and resources that will result from a massive level of service programs that will provide job training, college funding, and infrastructure to people in financial need so they can jumpstart their economic class ascent. Let us be clear: Mandatory service is no shibboleth or fancy dream. It is a necessary way to address the very structural inequality described by the gentleman in his above thesis.
Thesis #3
I don't disagree with the fine motives expressed in Thesis #2. My problem is that I'm a realist. Americans won't pay through their tax dollars any kind of universal service program that has enough meat on its bones to make a significant difference. Therefore, it is futile to even argue the nuances, the pros, and the cons of the different types of universal service proposed by various policy wonks and think tank ideologues because all the programs are already dead on arrival, so please don't waste our time any more with these fanciful pipe dreams of social engineering benevolence because they are all doomed to be ushered into the crematory of Bad Ideas.
Thesis #4
I am appalled by the nihilism and lazy thinking in Thesis #3 that would have us believe we must embrace the abysmal status quo. While true, our good American citizens won't fund some profligate starry-eyed social engineering program, we can tweak a universal service program that pays for itself and achieves the "sweet spot" of acceptable tax dollars if the program delivers infrastructure, job training, education, and community bonding in a way that is financially responsible and solvent. To abandon this project as a "fanciful pipe dream" is to indulge in the self-indulgent luxury of cynical despair, a luxury that America's struggling class can ill afford. So please spare me your smug, self-satisfied complacent negativity, get off your butt, roll up your sleeves, and let's work together to make a service program that addresses all the potential pitfalls you mention so that we can have a fighting chance to improve our citizens and society as a whole. I don't know about you, but I have children, and I refuse to tell them there is nothing to do in this crappy world except roll into a tiny ball and die. Kapish?
Thesis #5
I appreciate that you have children and that you wish to help pave the way for a better future world. However, in your quickness to judge me as a "self-indulgent nihilist," a "lazy thinker," and a "smug, self-satisfied cynic," you have filled yourself with so much self-righteous rectitude that you have blinded yourself from rational thinking. In fact, I submit that a reasoned analysis of the facts will show that your proposal for a "responsible, solvent" mandatory service program lacks any tenable connection to reality. For one, America's previous attempts at such fanciful social engineering projects have proven to be extravagant financial flops. Secondly, no politician on either side of the partisan divide is going to campaign on a program larded with so much expenditure as to crush local and state budgets with crippling debt. And finally, the current burden on American citizens to simply survive excludes the possibility of imposing mandatory duty on them. Sir, please, cease and desist your personal attacks on me and save your energy learning to think clearly and rationally about a social engineering program that is doomed to failure.
Comments