Summaries — eaglessb52

Summary 1.

Why America’s 2-party system is is on a collision course with our constitutional democracy

It seems counterintuitive that despite countless times of advocating for change of the system in America’s political climate, nothing actually changes drastically. During election season potential candidates promote ideas of change from the stranglehold the current system has on the American people. Someone who was big on “overthrowing the current system” during his campaign was Donald Trump. Despite his campaign promises, this deep state is still in power two years since his election.

Democrats and Republicans do not offer any such form of radical change. Any candidate promising radical change to the system yet runs under a party that has been established in this system for decades is not going to accomplish much overhaul. Any third party candidate who tries to work within the outlines laid down by our generally moderate system will not succeed in the long run.

Summary 2.

Boycotts Almost Surely Will Never Work

It seems counterintutive that efforts to boycott companies almost always have zero impact if not positive impact on the target company. In a most recnt case Nike put out an ad campaign staring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who is most famous for taking a knee during the National Anthem during NFL games. This inspired countless other sports players from the professional leagues, all the way down to high school to do the same. After seeing this ad people went as far as to take all of their Nike clothing and burn them on fire.

One reason boycotts don’t work is that there’s always more buyers. As of the time I’m writing this Nike stocks are up. New potential customers could include people who’ve never bought Nike before but share the same convictions as Kaepernick does. Despite an early drop, boycotts such as the one on Nike never make an economic dent. It would take a multinational boycott to make a big enough dent on a company like Nike. They never last that long nowadays either. One boycott that comes to mind is the Starbucks boycott from both right wing Americans and the one last year from Left wing Americans. You stopped hearing about it generally a week after it broke the news. In the end people go back on what they boycotted in the first place as well.

Summary 3.

We will never find a cure for cancer

It seems counterintuitive that we put so much money into cancer research yet we haven’t made so much as a dent into finding a cure. Every other week or so there’s a news article out about “progress” in cancer treatment. If we were to take all of these into consideration that it’d seem like a cure for cancer is just around the corner. But in fact it could be far from the truth. In turn scientists are suggesting that we would just have to live with cancer and we’ll have many ways to treat it so people do not die from it anymore.

One thought on “Summaries — eaglessb52”

  1. First, Eagles, thank you for your sources. I appreciate that you took the time and interest to select your own articles, and that you made good choices. I enjoyed reading them.

    1. Many of your classmates are writing too many words and sticking too close to the original source material, Eagles. In Summary 1, if anything, you’re staying too far the other direction. I applaud the directness of your own argument. And I appreciate how very purposefully you have summarized, mining the original for just what you need to urge your point of view. But I don’t think you’d be able to quote much of this source in support of your own thesis. Its thrust is not to say “Nothing changes,” but instead to worry about the radical changes to our democracy that a derailed two-party system threaten. And far from dismissing the solution of “more parties,” it strongly advocates for the participation of many more. I’d like your reaction.

    2. I like what you’re doing here, Eagles, but of course I have advice as well. Since your primary thesis is that the Nike boycott will be unsuccessful, you’re not truly summarizing the veganism article per se, which is OK but which creates a different process for you to follow. To make use of the veganism article with purposeful summary, you’d want to name it as a source and demonstrate the analogy. Burning slaughtered animals that have already been purchased to protest the slaughtering of animals (like burning Nike shoes you already own) is not a boycott; it’s a barbecue. In other ways also a boycott against eating animals is too small, too hard, and too vague to be effective. Your failure to mention the article you’re using for your evidence bypasses the requirements of the assignment. Ironically, yours is among the best work I’ve read, but it misses the point. I trust you’ll understand, though, what I’m getting at.

    3. This one’s a bit weak, Eagles, because it seems unfair to the original and simplistic. An equally simple and dramatic summary that doesn’t dispute the source would explain that what seems counterintuitive is easily understood if we think of cancer as dozens, even hundreds of diseases each adapted to a patient’s particular DNA, environment, and behaviors. Looked at that way, cancer IS cured, just not every cancer and not every time. A UNIVERSAL cure is probably impossible, but so is a cure for death.

    There’s a lot to like in your work, Eagles, and I enjoyed interacting with it. You can always receive extensive feedback if you engage with the process. Stop reacting and it will dry up. The choice is always yours.
    Your response, please?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s