Blog Stage Five

The Age of Alzheimer’s is an article about editorial that I read this afternoon from the New York Times.  This is a good article that reflects a serious problem: Alzheimer is a fatal disease. It will be a threat to baby boomers in the future, but now our government is not paying too much attention on it.

Three authors contributed on this article. They are not only outstanding, but also credible.  The authors are Sandra Day O’Connor, Stanley Prusiner, and Ken Dychtwald.  Sandra Day O’Connor is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court. Stanley  Prusiner is the director of the Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases at the University of California, San Francisco. He received the 1997 Nobel Prize in Medicine. The last author, Ken Dychtwald, is a psychologist and gerontologist. Also, he is the chief executive of a company that consults with businesses about the aging world population. 

The authors’ intended audiences could be old people, baby boomers, politicians, and lawmakers.

In this article, they argued that the risk of the Alzheimer for baby boomers is very high, but so far

only a handful of medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat this horrific disease. Also, our government did not care about this problem. However, the authors used facts, examples, and comparisons to explain the importance for treating and protecting this disease. In conclusion, they appealed and hoped lawmakers could pass a legislation related to solve this disease. Like they mentioned, a well-designed and adequately financed national strategic plan can be used to against Alzheimer’s.

I agree with the author. If we cannot avoid Alzheimer’s disease by physical testing, the best way to fight this disease must be improve our ability to protect ourselves. Older people must pay more attention about it. Although we are young now, after 20 or 30 years, we will turn old. Government should put more attention on it—setting a goal of stopping Alzheimer’s by 2020. Otherwise, it will become a tragedy in the future.

Stage Four: Critique and Editorial from a Blog

I read the article—In Climate Denial, Again from the New York Times this evening.  The article’s kind is opinion (editorial). Although this article does not publish the author’s name, it is worth for people to read and think about its issue-- “global warming.”  Also, this article reveals a fact: most republicans not only reject global warming solutions but also changed the truth and minimize its effort.

In my opinion, the author’s intended audience is republicans, democrats, scientists, environmentalists and other people.  Even though we do not know the author’s name, this article effectively uses historical examples and present facts demonstrate its credibility. Absolutely, it is credible.

Republicans are not concerned about global warming though this problem is very serious right now. In order to avoid this problem and keep their benefit, they repudiated scientific & peer-reviewed findings, altered congressional testimony, and suppressed the Environmental  Protection Agency and related people to veto this issue.  However, the writer points out an ugly fact: all of the actions are guided by the Former Vice President, Dick Cheney.  For example, Mr. Cheney has been used his powerful to undercut Mrs. Whitman (A leader who took climate change seriously.) According to Cheney, the effect of global warming is not very important at all. In addition, he thinks that there is not enough evidence to prove the future results. Is that really true? I do not think so. We can find statistical data and scientific findings and analysis online.  They show us that global warming is a very serious problem right now.

As we know, global warming is based upon man-made CO2. There is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and increased global temperature.  Ice core samples and polar bear movements show us this is a really urgent problem.  This problem must be solved. If the political party parrots the Cheney line, how can American trust them?  The United States has been built on innovation and scientific prowess, but now this spirit is threatened. 

Creating an embeded link in blogger

I read an article about an editorial from the opinion section of the New York Times yesterday.

The author, Richard D. Kahlenberg, made an argument about whether the elites manipulate the system to their advantage ---easy college admission for their children. This is a good article because it provides strong evidence, logic thinking, and practical statistics.

The author’s intended audience could be college or university alumni, legacy children, lawyers, tax collectors, law makers, and populists. Populist is growing anger about this situation. They think the educational system is the United States is not fair now because colleges grant easy admission channel for the children of alumni.  Some of the alumni and legacy children may argue that this is not true.
There is no hard evidence to prove  that legacy preference are often justified as a way of building loyalty among alumni, sustaining tradition, and increasing donations for colleges.  However, the author, Richard D. Kahlenberg provides a very strong evidence to make an argument --- “Studies have shown that being the child of an alumnus adds the equivalent of 160 SAT points to one’s application and increases one’s chances of admission by almost 20% points.”  

Both article and author are credible. The author, Richard D. Kahlenberg, is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. Also, he is the editor of “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions.”  In this article, he uses Thomas Jefferson’s  famous quote—“natural aristocracy based on virtue and talent” to explain hereditary preferences.  Then he took and example –the two lawyers’ arguments in Pennsylvania, to explain legacy preference violates the US law. Finally, the author appeals Congress outlaw alumni preferences at all universities. Otherwise, it will put an end to the form of discrimination in higher education.

I agree with the author.  Our government should protect the quality of the higher education. Congress should outlaw alumni preferences.  If legislators don’t act, some colleges and universities will lose credit for people.