It’s all about the fundamental outcome.”
This quote also relates to what California is going through. It indirectly addresses California's lack of actions on the problems taking place. It is saying that nothing matters until there is an actual positive outcome, until something actually changes.
Once you start looking for this pattern, you see it everywhere.
Addresses California's lack of acting on promised actions to better their state and help the community. This builds to the main idea because it introduces a recurring theme of disregard in California.
There is a danger — not just in California, but everywhere
This answers the "why should I care" because it brings in all readers by saying it is a danger everywhere. By saying that, all readers are now going to truly listen because this now applies to them regardless of whether they live in California or not.
The root of the crisis is simple: It’s very, very hard to build homes in California.
This identifies the problem. It directly addresses it after the problem of poverty and high house prices is being discussed in the previous sentences. It then builds off this statement by talking about how people have tried to fix it.
I should say, before going further, that I love California. I was born and raised in Orange County. I was educated in the state’s public schools and graduated from the University of California system, the greatest public university system in the world. I moved back a few years ago, in part because I love California’s quirks and diversity and genius
Talking about his history with California builds up his credibility because it shows that he is speaking from experience and that he knows what he's talking about. It lets the reader know that this isn't a biased and critical review on California's governance, rather a concerned opinion.
I love California
The author includes this to make sure the readers know that this is not an attack against California, and they know where he stands. He wants to clarify his position in this situation.
It felt like an attack on symbols was being prioritized over the policies needed to narrow racial inequality.
This answers the issue being talked about in the beginning of the article. It explains why some people were against renaming the schools. It adds to the main point of the article regarding California and its liberals.
their continued closure does terrible harm to students,
This introduces a sub-claim/topic that the article briefly discusses before leading into another related topic. This relates back to the introduction of the article which was talking about California's schools renaming while this also leads into the next topic of discussion. This sentence connects the other topics in this article.
You may have heard that San Francisco’s Board of Education voted 6 to 1 to rename 44 schools, stripping ancient racists of their laurels, but also Abraham Lincoln and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
This introduces the potential main idea of the article, which is the renaming of public schools and how it's stripping the racism from their names. However, the use of the word "but" implies that there is some disapproval because of how it is also getting rid of Abraham Lincoln and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
What you didn’t hear was much in the way of policy ideas to raise wages, improve health care or support families.
This introduces the main topic of the article. It hooks the reader because it is introduced as missed information that the readers don't have which makes them want to know more about it.
a growing array of studies showing that hotter weather leads to more violence, both between individuals and between countries.
this adds a new perspective to the authors purpose, it introduces a new problem that correlates to climate change. it suggests how much bigger the problem of climate change really is and how it should not be overlooked
We are changing that system in ways we do not understand and with consequences we cannot predict.
ends with a tone of uncertainty which can leave the reader eager to know more. its relates to what it's saying because its talking about unknown and not knowing what comes next and thats how it leaves you hanging.
In a world of aggressive climate action, it’s easy to imagine more states, and countries, receding from compacts and multilateral institutions because they don’t like the new rules, or the loss of sovereignty.
introduces a new sub-claim, a new problem, another concern people need to think about. this backs up his other claim regarding governments not caring enough to do something. it says that nations will do whats best for them not whats best for the people, if they don't agree with something they'll ignore it.
Unchecked climate change promises a future of scarcity and emergency, and that can create demand for politicians and solutions who falsely promise a return to simpler, better times.
foreshadows disasters that may occur if climate change is left unchecked. this shows the seriousness and intensity of this article. it adds to the power of the text, causing readers to really pay attention.
The most common mistake in politics is to believe there is some level of suffering that will force responsible governance. There isn’t
addresses a common misconception. this further deepens the discussion because it is addressing audience's potential questions or concerns. also displays authors lack of faith in the government and their willingness to help.
It is not just our energy infrastructure that is unprepared for climate change. It is our political infrastructure. It is our social infrastructure. It is our psyches.
this is development of his ideas. it is moving on from criticizing energy to criticizing the poor political and social infrastructures and the psyche. it is adding to his main complaint about Texas being unprepared.
It failed to prepare for the recent past.
criticizing how unprepared Texas was even though they had been through a much more detrimental event in the past. this implies that Klein feels that Texas could have prevented this much damage if it only was prepared from when this happened previously. lets reader's know his opinion.
When a global risk is unhedgeable, the danger it poses is existential.
this is introducing the main topic of this article - talking about how unprepared we are for climate change disasters. using the word "existential" to describe the danger makes the tone seem more urgent and grabs the readers attention.
“Uniquely American, isn’t it?” he replied with a smile. “I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.”
this story adds to the article because it shows how we consider alarming amounts of work success when it is clearly unhealthy. we have become accustomed to thinking that we are defined by how much we work and it is a harmful way of thinking.
Wanda Lavender lives in Milwaukee.
opening up with lavender's story puts the article into perspective and is an effective strategy in getting people to support your opinion.
“One of the bigger symbolic purposes of the child allowance is to say the work a parent does is valid — it’s valid as work,”
overarching theme of the article - acknowledging that what parents do requires just as much effort as everyday jobs do. this adds to his article because it is a quotation from someone else which builds on his point
“That means the opportunity to return to school, to open my own business. It could mean buying a house so I don’t need to catch the bus to work.”
interviewing lavender and letting her tell her story and what child allowance could do for her builds up his credibility and backs up his claim
What about the dignity of dignity?
question to think about
parents decided it’s best to spend their working hours doing the difficult and important job of caring for three young children and an ailing elder, that choice is worth honoring.
refutes the opposing argument made saying that those who quit work to stay home are "lazy"
Were those years in which Lavender worked night and day barely seeing her children, feeling her body break under the labor, a success of American public policy or a failure?
rhetorical question: it's a question for the readers to keep in mind as they read further into the article. it also introduces his main topic regarding work.
It should be accessible, meaning that parents have access to affordable child care, transportation and housing options so that they can work, if they want to. And it should pay decently, through a mix of minimum wage laws, strengthened unions and stronger wage subsidies.
after including sources, interviews from opposing and same opinions klein gives his personal opinion which ties in everything. it lets readers know what he thinks should be done and how it can be done.
Poor parents cannot afford to leave paid work and live lives that anyone in the Washington policy debate — left, right or center — would consider comfortable.
this backs up his main point which was in favor of child allowance because it clears a controversy. it reassures people that just because people will get child allowance does not mean they will quit their jobs. it shows how right now people are forced to work in harsh conditions yet still be unable to live comfortably.