TOW #27: "Taxes will go up. Here’s why."

              This article was posted by The Washington Post. Although this outlet has faced criticism from conservatives regarding its reliability, this article is an editorial and demonstrates only the author’s thoughts. The author, in this case, is Robert J. Samuelson. He has been a reporter since the 1960s. In this particular article, he addresses the issue of taxation in America. As the title indicates, Samuelson believes that taxes are bound to go up. He states that, despite Trump’s tax reform promises, and a growing conservative reaction from Americans, we are on course to need money in the government, and taxes will be raised.

              The author begins the article with a very direct statement. He says, “Let’s be clear: America is an undertaxed society.” This establishes the principle behind his thesis. Taxes will go up because, above all, they are too low. Later, he adds to why we “need” more tax with why we should “want” more tax. He talks about tax relief and says, “tax relief would go to low- and middle-income households with children — a deserving group.” It is hard to justify denying impoverished children the money they need to survive, and so the natural desire to help others would incline us to use more tax money.

              Ultimately, the question of taxation is going to be a polarizing one. It pits the wealthy against the poor. The wealthy argue that handouts will remove the work ethic of the poor and discourage them from working. However, the same argument could be made that tax cuts for the wealthy reduce their work ethic because it would allow them to make more money off less work. It really comes down to decency. No society should be able to sleep at night knowing that so many didn’t eat dinner. However, it is up to those not eating to prove they are worth feeding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/taxes-will-go-up-heres-why/2017/04/30/830294d6-2c45-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.d390ea1f838b

TOW #26: Why aren't people listening to scientists?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-dusautoy-march-for-science-20170423-story.html

              This article is written appropriately after the march for science. This was a time for people to voice their concerns about the general decrease in respect for science in America, particularly by the latest presidential administration. The article was written by Marcos du Sautoy of the Los Angeles Times. This is a very well-respected organization. The article discusses several instances in which the public, at least part of it, has dismissed the word of scientists. Perhaps the most profound example of this is the anti-vax movement that has led to an increase in measles cases. This movement not only went against the word of the scientific community but also against what should be common sense.

              The rhetoric of this article is affective because it is able to acknowledge this legitimacy of the anti-science side, which may not appear to have any credibility at first. One example of this is when the article states “sometimes science goes against intuition.” This may seem obvious, but to someone with very little intellectual ability, it is a reason to discredit science. A more understandable rationale that the article provides is the idea that scientists may act in self-interest. For instance, they may publish false information in order to bring attention to themselves. This suspicion has led to countless conspiracy theories.

              Ultimately, the article is preaching to the choir. The people in this country who choose to ignore the word of people who research professionally are too ignorant and miserable to be affected by an article criticizing them. This article is simply yet more reason for the educated to feel superior to groups such as anti-vaxxers. The only place where this article may have any effect is in the Trump administration, a target of the march for science. The people in there may be willing to listen, and we better hope they are.

IRB Intro #4

The time to select the last IRB of the year has come, and I have chosen Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's Super Freakonomics". My first IRB, the one that I read in the first marking period, was Freakonomics. I figured I would be able to see improvement in myself by comparing my analysis of two similar books from the beginning and ends of the year. Like the first Freakonomics, Super Freakonomics discusses the statistical ideas of unusual phenomena.

TOW #25: "Where Humans to Go Extinct, Should the Species Be Revived?"

              This article was written by Laura Geggel, a senior writer for LiveScience.org. The article summarizes a recent debate between some of the country’s top scientists. The debate was moderated by renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. The debate was over the subject of “de-extinction.” Specifically, should humans be brought back after they have gone extinct. The article discusses certain scenarios such as an alien civilization coming to Earth and reviving humans. However, in this scenario, the scientists, somewhat unanimously, opt for no de-extinction as humans would likely be kept in zoo-like habitats.

              The article itself is a string of anecdotes from the debate. It synthesizes soundbites and quotes into a concise yet continuous summary of the dialogue from the debate. It switches between pro de-extinction and anti-de-extinction perspectives and opinions from the participating scientists. It groups the opinions and quotes into ethical concerns and lawful concerns. Such an example is “Yes, we do, said panelist George Church, a professor at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is working on reviving bits and pieces of the woolly mammoth. But then again, Church, a geneticist, molecular engineer and chemist, has often opined that the science of de-extinction is already here or within reach, and should be pursued.”

              Perhaps the biggest flaw in the article was its failure to address what, to me, was the first question to enter my mind, “How can we revive ourselves if we are all dead?” The article does mention a few plausible scenarios (such as the alien revival I mentioned earlier) but it seems that the soundbites and quotes are addressing other situations. An explanation was needed but never provided. Otherwise, the organization of the essay was perfect. It balanced the perspectives given and grouped them into different concerns. Hopefully we will never have to come to de-extinction but it’s nice to know we have a good understanding if we do.