Backsliding on Nuclear Promises

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, SEPT. 22, 2014

For much of the past six years, President Obama has talked about working toward a world without nuclear weapons. Yet his administration is now investing tens of billions of dollars in modernizing and rebuilding America’s nuclear arsenal and facilities, as The Times reported in detail on Monday. And after good progress in making nuclear bomb material more secure around the world, Mr. Obama has reduced his budget requests for that priority. This is a shortsighted and disappointing turn.

With the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria dominating news headlines, it is easy to forget the threat that nuclear weapons and nuclear material continue to pose around the world. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says there are 16,300 nuclear weapons located at some 98 sites in 14 countries, a vast majority in the United States and Russia. There are also 25 countries that possess enough nuclear and radiological materials to build a weapon, with such material held at hundreds of sites, many vulnerable to extremists.

When he first came to office, Mr. Obama was clearsighted about nuclear dangers and ambitious in his disarmament goals. His major arms control achievement was the New Start treaty with Moscow aimed at reducing deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side, down from 2,200, by February 2018. But to win Republican support for the treaty in 2010, Mr. Obama made a Faustian bargain, promising to spend $84 billion to upgrade aging nuclear weapons over the next decade, a $14 billion increase over the regular $70 billion modernization budget.

But the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that Mr. Obama’s plans will cost $355 billion over the next decade; other studies put the price at $1 trillion over three decades. The wish list includes 12 new missile submarines, up to 100 new bombers, 400 land-based missiles, plus upgrades to eight major plants and laboratories.

There has been little debate among members of Congress and the public about the decision by Mr. Obama and Congress to pour billions of dollars into new nuclear weapons systems — even as other government programs have been cut significantly.

Not only is this spending unwise and beyond what the nation can afford, multiple studies by the Government Accountability Office have described the modernization push as badly managed. In a statement released on Monday, nuclear weapons experts from the Arms Control Association, the Federation of American Scientists and others called the modernization plan excessive and said the country can reduce the number of missiles and bombers it buys and still maintain a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal.

Worse yet, the administration is making a foolish trade-off — pouring money into modernization while reducing funds that help improve security at nuclear sites in Russia and other countries where terrorists or criminals could get their hands on nuclear materials.

Since Mr. Obama took office, he has pushed the international community to improve nuclear security. The result is that 13 countries have eliminated their nuclear materials stockpiles and 15 others removed or disposed of portions of theirs. But a report by experts at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government says the Obama administration’s proposed 2015 budget would cut spending for nuclear security by 21 percent, from $700 million this year to $555 million. While Congress restored some of that money in a stopgap spending bill, it expires in December and no one knows what happens after that.

Fortunately, 26 senators have recognized that such cuts are dangerous and urged that they be reversed. Investing in nuclear security protects Americans more than unwise investment in new nuclear weapons.

Homework Exercise (MW Section)

The first paragraph of the editorial has been color-coded blue to identify it in its entirety as a comparison between early promises made at the beginning of the Obama Administration and the situations that indicate those promises have been broken.

1. Cut and paste the entire editorial into a new post of your own titled: Ed Exercise–Your Username.

2. Categorize it as Editorial Exercise MW under the Homework category (and of course put it in your username category

3. Uncheck Uncategorized).

4. Color code the rest of the Editorial using this code:

BLUE: Early promises vs Promises Broken

RED: Factual background material to establish the basis for claims

GREEN: Claims made by the editors that would require support

PURPLE: Rhetorical language used to persuade

Complete the exercise by 11:59 TUE SEP 29

Your second writing assignment is the rewrite of your first: a Letter to the Editor (LTE) Rewrite that responds to feedback from your instructor, your classmates, your trusted advisers, or the free student tutors at the Writing Center.

Here’s the schedule:

• TUE-THU class:
  • Deadline 11:59PM WED SEP 24
• MON-WED class:
  • Deadline 11:59PM TUE SEP 23

To complete the assignment, you’ll publish a New Post, and save it to two categries (A02: LTE Rewrite, and your username).

What Happens Next
Starting with students who specifically request it, I’ll provide additional feedback on your Rewrite, general and structural at first, then eventually very specific and detailed. We’ll save grammar, spelling, and sentence structure corrections to the end, once we’re fairly certain your letter is stable.

With your first round of feedback, you’ll also receive a grade, which you can continue to improve until you move the letter into your Portfolio at the end of the semester.

Until your argument achieves a letter grade of C, you’ll be told it’s Not Ready for Portfolio. Once it’s good enough to earn a C, it will be deemed Portfolio Ready, but certainly not perfect. You’ll have until early December to make it the best it can be.

• Post in the new A02: LTE Rewrite category, and your username
• Failure to post the assignment on time will result in a grade of 0/100.
• Shorter Arguments grade category (20%)
• TUE-THU class:
  • Deadline 11:59PM WED SEP 24
• • MON-WED class:
  • Deadline 11:59PM TUE SEP 23

If you know why both of these sentences are correct, you aren’t confused by that and which.
1. It was a bad mistake, which you knew when you made it.
2. It was a bad mistake that you knew when you made it was a bad mistake.

If the different uses of that and which are unclear, we should talk about the special cases for using these relative pronouns.

Letter Rewrite Exercise

VERSION 1

“VIRTUALLY every single player in the N.F.L. has a certifiable need for medical marijuana.” This is the arguement made by Nate Jackson, author of both “Slow Getting Up: A Story of N.F.L. Survival From the Bottom of the Pile” and a recent article posted in the New York Times. In Jackson’s article he argues that marijuana (medicinal or non-medicinal) should be allowed in the N.F.L. due to its medicating effects. As a diehard N.F.L. fan, I recognize the dangers of allowing proffesional football players to work under the influence of marijuana. If this is allowed profesional athletes will no longer be seen as positive role models, nor will they be able to compete with a full understanding of there phyical abilities, leading to more sports injuries.

Growing up in South Jersey, the Philadelphia Eagles have been and still are a big influence in my life. As a child, I looked up to athletes like Donovan McNabb and Brian Dawkins. Luckily for me, these athletes were positive role models, not just on the field but also in their off field activity. Children today see their favorite N.F.L. athletes and aspire to be like them in every way possible. If marijuana use is allowed within the N.F.L., children will begin to believe that marijuana will make them popular like the stars on the field, or that the drug will give them an athletic boost when playing sports. This type of exposure doesn’t only have a negative influence on society’s youth, but also on the N.F.L., as the league will be seen as an encourager of illegal drug use at the highest level of competition.

In Jackson’s article, he compares the use of marijuana to the use of painkillers. Jackson writes: “The policy reflects outdated views on marijuana and pain management, punishes players who seek an alternative to painkillers, keeps them in a perpetual state of injury and injury management, and risks creating new addicts.” With this quote, Jackson states that painkillers keep players in a perpetual state of injury and risk creating new addicts. What Jackson fails to realize is that marijuana users will fall under the same perpetual state of injury; This is because these players will compete with a blurred view of their physical ability and a momentarily higher pain tolerance. Another problem is that most marijuana users are self-prescribed, where painkillers are handed out by physicians and have a recomended dosage. Therefore, it would be the players job to determine how high to get before each game.

In conclusion, allowing N.F.L. players to self medicate themselves with marijuana would be a negative to the players, fans, and N.F.L. as a whole. Players would over-estimate their athletic abilities due to the effects of marijauna, causing an increase in injuries. America’s youth would begin consuming more marijuana as they aspire to be more like their favorite athletes and gain competitive advantages on the field. The N.F.L. would recieve a backlash of negative feedback from an upset older generation for allowing their athletes to self-medicate themselves with marijuana. The N.F.L. should not encourage drug use among the admired athletes within the league.

VERSION 2

“VIRTUALLY every single player in the NFL has a certifiable need for medical marijuana,” says Nate Jackson, in his New York Times article, “The NFL’s Absurd Marijuana Policy.” The author of “Slow Getting Up: A Story of NFL Survival From the Bottom of the Pile” argues that pro football players should be permitted to medicate themselves with marijuana. As a diehard NFL fan, I object that professional athletes will no longer be seen as positive role models, nor will they be able to safely compete, if they’re playing high.

Growing up in South Jersey, I was influenced by Philadelphia Eagles like Donovan McNabb and Brian Dawkins. Lucky for me, my role models were model citizens, not just accomplished athletes. Children always emulate their favorite athletes. If they’re known to be smoking weed, marijuana will seem like a shortcut to popularity or even athletic success. The NFL can do without this sort of image change too. Does it want to be seen as encouraging illegal drug use at the highest level of sports competition?

Jackson compares the use of marijuana to the use of painkillers. He writes: “The policy reflects outdated views on marijuana and pain management, punishes players who seek an alternative to painkillers, keeps them in a perpetual state of injury and injury management, and risks creating new addicts.” But marijuana users will be equally likely to injure themselves if they play without pain, and who’s to say they won’t become addicted to the sense of well-being and enhanced ability? Furthermore, self-prescribed marijuana users will not received medical guidance about the correct dose for their “medication.”

In conclusion, allowing NFL players to self medicate will harm the players, the fans, and the league. Players would be more often injured, impressionable youth would take up marijuana, and the NFL would incur the wrath of an older generation of fans disappointed in the decline of moral values. The NFL should resist the use of illegal drugs by its players.

VERSION 3

Nate Jackson would encourage the medicinal use of marijuana by NFL players because “Virtually every single player in the NFL has a certifiable need for medical marijuana” The author of Slow Getting Up: A Story of NFL Survival From the Bottom of the Pile believes the NFL’s current policy of suspending players who test positive for marijuana use is absurd. As a diehard NFL fan, I object that professional athletes will no longer be seen as positive role models, nor will they be able to safely compete, if they’re playing high.

As a child, I was lucky to have model citizens like Philadelphia Eagles Donovan McNabb and Brian Dawkins to emulate. Tomorrow’s youth will be likely to think smoking weed is a shortcut to popularity or even athletic success if the league relaxes its policy. Does the NFL want to be seen as encouraging illegal drug use at the highest level of sports competition?

Jackson’s comparison of marijuana to prescription painkillers misses an important point: tokers will be just as likely to injure themselves if they play without pain, especially so if being high makes them feel invulnerable. And nobody knows how to safely dose with marijuana.

Along with the injuries and the negative influence on kids, the NFL would incur the wrath of fans disappointed in the decline of moral values. It’s Jackson’s proposal, not the league’s current policy, that is absurd.

VERSION 4

In the Reply field below, copy and paste whichever version you believe to be the best so far. Using it as your rough draft, improve this letter to the editor for clarity and persuasiveness but without adding material.

When you have finished, open your own current draft of your A01: LTE and begin the honorable if sometimes frustrating work of making your writing less awful. 🙂

Count (number) and Noncount (amount) Nouns

Some nouns can be counted: examples, for example

1, 2, 3, 4 examples? YES
A number of examples

Some nouns cannot be counted: evidence, for example

1, 2, 3, 4, evidences? NO
The amount of evidence

Just as you would never say 3 evidences, you should also never say: The amount of examples I offer in my essays.

Since they can be counted, those examples are referred to as the number of examples you include in your essays.

On the other hand, no matter how many pieces of evidence you bring to your essay, you would never refer to the number of evidences. The pieces can be counted, but evidence cannot, so we refer to the amount of evidence.

In an early class we discussed the 10 Essential Components of a Letter to the Editor. In the days since, we’ve spent time looking for evidence of those components in actual letters.

Today, you’ll analyze the effectiveness of one letter from a batch of letters. But first, you’ll need to read the article the letters respond to.

“Yes” Is Better Than “No.”

Once you understand the arguments advanced by authors Michael Kimmel and Gloria Steinem, briefly scan the batch of letters devoted to this discussion of the attempt by colleges in California to reframe the debate about consensual sex from “No means no,” to “Yes means yes.”

The Letters to the Editor

Which one letter makes the most persuasive case for its author’s point of view? Which of the 10 essential components does the author use most effectively to make the case? Since many letters are very short, most components may be missing. Explain why their exclusion does not harm the letter writer’s argument, or why including those components might improve the argument’s effectiveness.

1. Provide your analysis by publishing a Reply to this post.
2. Before you begin to comment, identify the letter you’re responding to as in the Sample, number 3.
3. I’m greentwinky, responding to Barbara Winslow’s letter (or Alexander Goldstein’s letter, or Jonathan Zimmerman’s letter, or Robert Batterson’s letter, or Dan Subotnik’s letter, or Peter Yates’s letter).
4. Following that statement, refer to the author by his or her last name only; for example, “Winslow makes the false claim that . . . .”
5. You have just 30 minutes to read the article, scan the letters, and respond to whichever letter you wish. Analyze one letter only.
6. Your response is not a letter to the editor. It’s an evaluation of a letter. So you don’t have to include the 10 components in your Reply.