1.      This article begins with a succinct summary of the American Dream. What is your understanding of this concept? What role, if any, has it played or does it play in your own goals and actions?

In discussing these questions, you might ask students to evaluate the extent to which they believe the American Dream is open equally to everyone in the United States. Are some people and groups more advantaged than others? Does everyone even want to participate in the American Dream as it has traditionally been defined?

2.      Paragraphs 2 and 3 summarize what others are saying. Paragraph 2 discusses ways in which the American Dream has been a success and is envied and emulated around the world. Paragraph 3 considers the downside of the American model. Why do you think that this article opens with a discussion of two seemingly contradictory perspectives on this issue?

The article opens with these two contradictory perspectives because its purpose is to go on to suggest that the two can, in fact, be reconciled—that faith in “the American model” is justified even though it may be marked by inequality because there are ways in which that inequality can be remedied.

3.      Paragraph 5 raises three key issues: inequality, meritocracy, and immigration. What does the article argue about each of these aspects of the U.S. economy?

The article argues, first, that inequality in the United States is a complex matter; yes, the rich are getting richer, but the differences between other economic segments of society are narrowing. Second, the case is made that, despite what critics say, immigration has not driven down wages; moreover, it is a fundamental aspect of the American Dream. Finally, the article praises the concept of meritocracy, at the same time admitting that it is not always practiced fairly in the United States and going on to suggest changes to the system that could make the concept more equitable.

1.      According to this article, paragraph 9 in particular, economic inequality is not inherently wrong, as long as three conditions are met. What are those conditions, and what do you think about this view?

The article asserts that the conditions under which inequality isn’t wrong are that wealth is increasing for society as a whole, that a safety net is provided for the very poor, and that there is equal opportunity for all to climb through the system. Students’ thinking about this view—and the very concept of the “American model”—may be influenced by the severe economic downturn of 2008 (obviously not anticipated by the rosy assessment of the Economist a little over two years earlier) and by the ways in which the Obama administration has responded in the meantime.

Two Years Are Better than Four

1) What view is Liz Addison responding to?

2) Addison discusses her ow educational experience as part of her argument. What role does this use of autobiographical narrative play in her argument?

3) How does Addison make clear that her topic is really important--and that it should matter to readers?

4) In closing, Addison writes of community colleges "It is here that Mr Perlstein will find his college years of self-discovery, and it is here that he will find that college does still matter." Do you think college still matters? Respond to this point from your own perspective as a college student.

reality television

1.      George F. Will describes as a “race to the bottom” the TV shows in which people “degrade themselves for money.” What TV shows might fit his definition? Where in his critique is a “they say” that defends such programming?

Students will likely come up with a variety of examples of “reality” shows in which people “degrade themselves for money.” You might ask that they think about such programming in terms of genre: for example, those such as Fear Factor, in which contestants subject themselves to disgusting acts; those such as Survivor that require scheming and manipulation; those such as Temptation Island and I Love New York that are based on sex; and so forth. Which kinds seem most degrading? Will’s “they say” comes in paragraph 10, where he includes the counterargument that works once considered scandalous are now seen as great pieces of art, and in paragraph 12, where he includes the counterargument that television producers are simply providing what viewers want.

2.      Will uses strong language to convey his negative view not just of television programming but of many other aspects of society. He discusses “today’s endemic exhibitionism,” for instance, and talks of life “in an increasingly infantilized society.” How does he see TV fitting into this larger picture?

Will feels that television is exacerbating the coarseness, exhibitionism, and infantilization of contemporary culture by pandering to the lowest common denominator, airing more and more shocking programming to an audience that is more and more desensitized to shock.

3.      This piece was syndicated to more than 400 papers, and yet it’s written in language that is quite formal, even academic. How does Will’s formal style relate to his argument about the “downward spiral” of popular culture today—and to the kind of people he wants his readers to become?

Will’s stylistic formality, his sophisticated diction, and his obvious erudition set him strongly apart from the coarseness and stupidity he decries in contemporary culture. In a sense, his writing provides an example of the level of intellectual discourse to which he believes the culture should aspire.

4.      Compare Will’s views of television viewers today with the views of Steven Johnson (pp. 213–30) or Dana Stevens (pp. 231–34).

Johnson actually has good things to say about reality television. As suggested in the discussion of his essay earlier, he thinks shows such as Survivor and The Apprentice keep viewers on their toes by constantly introducing new challenges and changing what seem to be the rules; they also test social networking skills by requiring that viewers pay close attention to participants’ personality traits. This is exactly the opposite of what Will argues. Stevens, in arguing against Johnson’s position, is perhaps closer to Will, but she still refuses to characterize television as “brain-liquefying poison,” which would clearly be Will’s view of reality television. 

ads

fruit loops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdsV1ROQTZg

mcd's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oACRt-Qp-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmrTDZy3f2M

your trusted friends

advertising to kids

synergy?

similarities b/w ray kroc and ronald mcdonald?

golden arches!

Warner

1) Citing such influential figures as Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck, Judith Warner suggests that changing people's eating habits could prove far more difficult than many imagine. Why does she think this change will be so challenging?

2) How are historical changes in public attitudes toward cigarette smoking, discussed in paragraph 8, related to Warner's argument about Americans' eating habits?

3) Does Warner include any possible objections to her argument? If not, do it for her. Insert a brief paragraph stating an objection to her argument and then respond to the objection as she might.

Warner seems to consider it unlikely that Americans will adopt a healthier diet anytime soon, despite efforts by Michelle Obama and others to promote better eating. How would you respond to this? Do you agree? Disagree?