Bless Me, Ultima: Part 3

A lot happened in chapters 13-16. The biggest event, I would say, is Narciso's death. However, what struck me the most about this section of the book are Antonio's thoughts and dreams about God. At the very beginning of the chapter, Antonio wonders why the golden carp chose to punish sinners just like Antonio's christian God. He wishes for  a god that would forgive everyone. However, I remember thinking frequently that the book seemed a bit contradictory, because it preached about universal kindness and forgiveness but still condemned some characters as evil and deserving punishment. However, in Antonio's dream this exact issue is addressed. God and Antonio's favorite angel, Guadalupe, talk about forgiving Tenorio as well as Narciso. God says to Antonio "You would have a God who forgives all, but when it comes to your personal whims you seek punishment for your vengeance" (Anaya 173). I thought that this was a very significant quote. It is easy for people to say, theoretically, that we should forgive and love everyone, but when it comes to actual practice, it becomes very difficult. In Antonio's case, it is difficult for him to forgive Tenorio, who killed Narciso and swears that he will kill Ultima. Perhaps Anaya is trying to say that nobody is perfect, and we can't judge others harshly without expecting to be judged ourselves. In addition, if we believe strongly in something, we must also believe consistently, even when it is difficult. It is easy to preach forgiveness if you or someone you care about has done something bad, but it is difficult to preach forgiveness to people who have hurt you. Yet, like Antonio, you must either forgive both or forgive neither, or else be a hypocrite.
I have felt bad for Tenorio throughout the book, because everything he has done has been to save his daughter from death. And I can't help but wonder whether Ultima is in fact responsible for the death of Tenorio's daughters. She did create the voodoo dolls of them, after all. And if Ultima is responsible for killing Tenorio's children, is she really any better than they are? Antonio wants to see Tenorio punished for hurting Narciso, and Tenorio wants Ultima punished for hurting his daughters, so it is hard for me to condemn Tenorio and not Antonio. I wonder if Anaya was trying to make Ultima and Tony represent good and Tenorio represent evil, as it seemed at first, or if he deliberately made the situation open to interpretation. After all, very few things in life are black and white the way they often are in books and movies.
Another interesting aspect of the book is Andrew's role in everything. Is Anaya condemning Andrew for giving in to temptation, or suggesting that society is too harsh on people like him. Perhaps Andrew could have saved Narciso, but there was no way for him to realize the gravity of the situation. He obviously felt very guilty after. Antonio was shocked to see his brother at Rosie's, and blamed himself because he thought he must have somehow lost his innocence. However, I don't think Anaya was trying to say that Andrew was a bad person because he was at Rosie's. I think that he was just trying to show that everyone does things like that sometimes, and so it is silly to judge each other so harshly. The idea of being more forgiving and open-minded continues to be a theme throughout the novel.

Deportation Without Representation

Like many other articles I have blogged about, this one was written to point out something that should make people angry. In this case, immigrants are being deported without any legal representation, a blatant violation of the American legal system. The article states that 67% of the people who are represented by attorneys are allowed to stay, while only  8% of the unrepresented defendants avoid being deported. Obviously this is incredibly unfair. This article makes me very upset because we aren't just sending criminals away, we are deporting people without even giving them a fair trial! If the statistics are accurate, 59% of the deportees would be allowed to stay if they had been represented. That is more than half of them, and deporting someone isn't something that should be taken lightly.
The article was written very well. It was short and to the point, which I like, because pages of unnecessary details can get very boring in articles like this. There was enough logos to convince people that the problem is real, with statistics and evidence to back it up. There was enough pathos to get people upset- the title should appeal to any American's sense of patriotism- and the article concludes with a nice little paragraph of ideas on how to improve the situation. Personally, I find it annoying when people complain about things without having any idea how to make them better, or any willingness to take action. I much prefer articles like this, where the author describes a problem then offers solutions.

Article

Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

This article interested me because it talked about Juror Nullification, which I had never heard of before. I am very impressed with this guy, because he openly expressed some very controversial views which could actually get him into legal trouble. In fact, one of his main arguments was that it is ridiculous to arrest people for spreading information about juror nullification. This is when a jury agrees to throw out a case, regardless of whether they think the defendant is guilty. An example the author gave was when people are caught using marijuana- he advised jurors to vote "not guilty" no matter what. This might seem to go against our legal system, but personally I think that this balances things out. I understand why many things are illegal, but if a kid gets caught with marijuana, I think the consequences are often much too harsh, especially since so many people do it. Being able to nullify a case makes it so that we can use our judgement, rather than blindly applying a general law that might seem to harsh for an individual case. Regardless of how often you think juror nullification should be used, it would be hard to convince me that at least spreading information should be illegal. What about the first amendment?

The author appealed to logos, pathos, and ethos in this article. Logos was used primarily in his argument about our civil rights. It doesn't make sense, considering the first amendment, that people should be prohibited from spreading information about juror nullification. Pathos was used a little bit, because civil rights definitely appeal to our patriotism and pride. Also, the marijuana example probably struck many people personally. Who has never met someone at some point in their life who has been in possession of marijuana? The thought of those people's lives being destroyed by a court is certainly upsetting. Ethos is also used because the author has written many other articles and pamphlets on the topic, which he mentions in the article. In the end, I agree that more people should at least know about this; where it should be applied may still be debated, but at least some public knowledge would be a step in the right direction.

Article

In Iraq, Abandoning Our Friends

I would say this article has a much stronger argument than the last one. Perhaps this is only because this author is angry and upset, while the other writer seemed optimistic. Either way, the writer of this article had strong appeals to logos, ethos and pathos. He used logos by using statistics and comparing the current situation in Iraq to past historical issues, such as the Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War. Pathos was appealed to when he said how many people were dying. He said we were committing "betrayal" and sarcastically remarked "If you can survive the next 18 months, maybe we’ll let you in," regarding American allies in Iraq. Ethos was strong as well because the writer of this article actually founded an organization dedicated to helping our allies in Iraq. Overall, the article is powerful, well-written and persuasive.
Personally, I was very upset by this article, but not particularly surprised. One comment that struck me was when the article said "The sorry truth is that we don’t need them anymore now that we’re leaving, and resettling refugees is not a winning campaign issue." After all, that seems to be the only things politicians concern themselves with now. They need to dedicate one hundred percent of their time to creating a good reputation and sabotaging the reputations of their competition. They don't have any time left to actually act based on their beliefs and American ideals. It's the same in the upcoming election. All the candidates for the Republican primary are attacking each other- when one of them is chosen, all the fighting against other candidates will have weakened their reputation and hurt their chance to win the actual election. Shouldn't their first goal be to put their party in power, so that their beliefs can prevail? No, candidates nowadays care more about having the power themselves. I find it sad how politics work nowadays, and the knowledge that our loyal allies in Iraq are dying because of it is very disturbing. The article quotes Obama years ago, promising not to abandon our allies. But, like most politicians, he does not seem to be keeping his word since it is not one of the big, popular issues. Maybe it's really the voters' faults. If we looked at the actual actions and beliefs of the politicians, instead of putting so much emphasis on personality and image, maybe politicians would have the confidence to follow their beliefs and go through with their promises.


Article

A Formal End

I chose to do this article because the first sentence reads "It is a relief that the American role in the misguided Iraq war is finally over." I found this interesting because another article right below this one was called "In Iraq, Abandoning Our Friends." I found it interesting that these articles seemed to have opposite views, especially in the same newspaper, so I will blog about both of them.
Actually, it was hard to figure out exactly what the author was trying to say. He used pathos, discussing the many lives lost and the corruption and discrimination happening in Iraq. He also used logos, listing many numbers and facts to support his idea. Despite all this, though, it was unclear what his idea actually was. At first, he seemed to be saying that it is a good thing that we are out of Iraq. Towards the end, he adds "President Obama, who first ran for office campaigning against the war, has never wavered on his promise to bring the troops home." So it seems that the author of this article is glad that we are out. However, he goes on and on about the many issues that remain unsolved, so I guess he is saying that as glad as we are for this "formal end," there is still a long way to go. He mentioned that we should continue to offer support and limited assistance. He also wrote "The Obama administration was unable to reach a new defense agreement with Baghdad that would have allowed several thousand American troops to stay behind as backup," which I found interesting because it implied that it was in no way Obama's fault that this agreement did not work, but it also implies that it was perhaps a good idea, and should have happened. In the end, I guess the idea is that we are out of the war and optimistic about the future, but we need to be ready for problems to arise. So is this article really so different than the other? Tune in next blog to find out!


Article

Bless Me, Ultima: Part 2

     As you might be able to guess from the fact that I am posting my second blog now, I am really enjoying this book. Halfway through, it still seems like a series of anecdotes rather than one cohesive novel, but I am looking forward to some rising action beginning soon. I hope there will be something exciting at the end, and I am feeling fairly optimistic.
     An interesting theme that has become more defined in the second quarter of the book is the questioning of religion. At first, I thought this book was a strongly Christian book. After all, Antonio's mom spends hours at a time praying, and Antonio seems like a dedicated boy as well. However, despite everything, I am beginning to think that Anaya is steering the reader away from religion. I am not suggesting that he has no religious views, but I am starting to see some parallels between Bless Me, Ultima and The Grapes of Wrath. Both seem to share a theme about the natural goodness of people, regardless of what exists beyond life. Antonio is starting to see that God did not heal his uncle, but Ultima did. Like I said before, the ideas of forgiveness and gentleness have always appealed to Antonio more than the idea of a supremely powerful God. I think Anaya is suggesting that regardless of our beliefs, we should be kind and generous to other people and be grateful to those who help us.
     One thing about this book that I am having trouble understanding is the doubt that Anaya allows us to feel about Ultima. Why did Antonio discover the metal cross lying on the ground? Why did Ultima make voodoo dolls of the three girls, and why did one of them shrivel up and die when the girl died too? Why did Antonio compare Ultima's power, which was like a whirlwind, to evil power? Basically, Anaya creates a great deal of doubt as to whether Ultima is actually a witch. However, perhaps I do know the reason for this. Maybe Anaya is saying that it doesn't matter what Ultima is. What matters is that she is gentle and kind and saves many lives. Challenging her to walk through a door with a cross on it, and being ready to murder her depending on the result, is silly. People should be judged by their tangible actions on earth. Personal beliefs about an afterlife should not affect how we treat people.
     I suppose I can't possibly discuss this group of chapters without mentioning the Golden Carp. The Golden Carp is an enormous, beautiful fish that is told to be a god in disguise. I think this story supports the message that I have gotten from reading this book. The Golden Carp chose to be a fish so it could watch over the people, whom it loved. This contrasted sharply with the opinions of the other gods, who had wanted to kill them all. The idea of the Golden Carp conflicts with Antonio's religion, and I think this shows that our specific beliefs do not matter as much as our personal morals and actions. Also, the Golden Carp, like Guadalupe, is gentle and forgiving.

The SAT Cheating Scandal

Being a high school junior, taking the SATs and applying for colleges will definitely require a lot of time and dedication for the next year or so. That is why I was rather interested in this article. Well, it turned out to be two letters to the editor regarding a recent article about kids on Long Island who have cheated on the SATs. I read the article as well as the two letters. The article was very upsetting; rich kids have been hiring stand-ins to take the SATs. One boy even took the test for two girls, without getting caught immediately. After all the rules and stuff we have to go through when we take standardized tests, people are still cheating easily for a fee. The article says that stand-ins are like drugs. They are easily available and it is merely a question of whether someone wants to use them. Personally, I don't understand the ultimate goal of cheating on the SATs. Do you really want to get into a college that you aren't smart enough to get into? Where everyone else in school will be smarter than you? There is a college out there for everyone, and people should go to the ones where they fit in.
The first letter to the editor was very good. A woman relies on ethos and pathos to consider the underlying problems that have caused the cheating. She thinks that, in part, parents are responsible. Being a parent herself, the article is persuasive because she knows what she is talking about from experience. Parents, she suggests, put pressure on their children to succeed rather than do their personal best. Children should want good scores because they want to be proud of themselves, and if this was true cheating would be pointless. I agree with this parent, and think it is good advice for the parents of any child.
The second letter was from an alumnus of the school in question, who was upset at the way the school was portrayed in the article. She uses ethos, being an almunus, to persuade people that the school is not as corrupt as the article suggests. She claims that there are plenty of struggling families as well as rich ones, and usually students succeed through hard work and dedication rather than cheating. I think this letter seems true because the woman who wrote it is discussing her personal experiences, and I agree that articles frequently paint an unfair picture of the things they discuss.

Bless Me, Ultima

After the first seven chapters, I'm still not too sure how I feel about this book. I hope it gets into a real plot soon, because I think the author seems talented but I could definitely get bored if nothing really happens throughout the book.  I also wish there wasn't quite so much Spanish in it, although the people who don't take Spanish have more of a right to complain than I do.
I think the main point of this story will be the process of Antonio growing up and deciding what he wants to do with his life. His mother wants him to be a priest, while his father wants him to be a man more like him. However, now that Ultima is in the picture I predict that Antonio will not follow in the footsteps of either of his parents. I think he will follow Ultima.
One interesting aspect of this book is the role of magic in it. Ultima is frequently accused of witchcraft, which seems sad because she uses all of her abilities to heal people. Antonio also has supernatural dreams, like the dream where he saw himself being born. Finally, Anaya frequently refers to the presence of the river. I wonder if Ultima is supposed to possess actual supernatural powers, or if she is supposed to be a kind and wise woman who is unjustly discriminated against. I also wonder if the river's presence is supposed to be taken literally, and if the author is suggesting that nature has its own soul or spirit, or if it is a metaphorical thing.
Religion obviously plays a big role in the story. Antonio's family is constantly praying, and they go to church. Antonio's mom wants him to be a priest and Antonio thinks frequently about God and sin. When Lupito is killed, Antonio spends a lot of time pondering the way God would view the situation. He thinks of murder as a mortal sin, and worries that his father might be condemned for it. Lupito murders as well, although he was somewhat mentally unstable, and Antonio wonders what will happen to his soul. I think this book is somewhat realistic in the way that it shows situations where there isn't a very clear right or wrong.
At one point, Antonio admits that he prefers Saint Guadalupe to all other saints, and even to God. I think this shows a very significant aspect of the book's theme. God is the one who judges and punishes people, while Guadalupe is gentle and forgiving towards everyone. Since Antonio prefers Guadalupe, I think Anaya is praising kindness and peace over punishment and harsh justice. I expect that this will be a recurring theme in the rest of the story.
Although I think this books is a little boring at parts, it manages to touch on many subjects and conflicts that most people can relate to. Antonio, like many children, feels pressure from others pushing him in different directions. He is afraid of having to grow up and decide what his future will be. The book, like I have mentioned, also touches on religious and moral conflicts and questions. At the end of this section, the book described the feeling of being different as a child, which many children must face and which is very difficult. Antonio is laughed at by the other children, but he eventually finds friends who share his troubles.
At the end of this section, I think this book is very thoughtful and well-written, and it contains a lot of powerful themes and ideas. However, in spite of its content, I still worry that I will begin to grow bored if nothing more interesting begins happening soon.

Unsettled Justice at Upper Big Branch

I read this article to find out what "unsettled justice" was referring to. As it turns out, 29 miners died because the mining company refused to meet safety regulations. This was not just a few little mistakes either; the company kept fake records, destroyed documents, and fired employees who complained about their safety. In addition, there has been little progress in finding who is responsible due to mining laws. I agree fully when the author says reforms should be made for the future. I certainly don't think the mining company should have been allowed to do whatever it wanted until people started dying; when 29 people die, it's too late. They should have been stopped a long time ago. If it is discovered that a company broke a regulation that could have resulted in the loss of lives, I think they should be punished as if people had actually died, so that they will never do it again,
The article relied on pathos and logos. The fact that 29 people were killed definitely encourages readers to become angry and upset. The way the article talks about the investigation is clearly designed to get people angry that more is not being done. To support these ideas, the article uses logos, providing details and evidence from different reports and investigations. He quotes a report by the federal mining safety agency as well as federal officials. The article is very persuasive, and is likely to get people angry. The author makes his opinion very clear, saying that the lack of reform is "shameful". He also provides ideas of how the situation can be improved with stricter regulations, which enforces his idea that it is very possible to do something about this. The article is also kept short and interesting, which I consider to be a good thing because I often get bored if an article contains pages of small details and statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/unsettled-justice-at-upper-big-branch.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

My Bridge to Nowhere

I decided to read this article because, based on the short description of it underneath the link, it seemed to be saying that it was very difficult to adopt a child, which surprised me. I thought there was an excess of children who needed adoption out there. I wondered if the legal process was too difficult for some people, which I thought would be very unfortunate, since we should try to get every child into a good home rather than worry about legal details. As it turns out, the article was a narrative by a woman who has been trying to adopt a child. She has already attempted it several times, and in this particular story, she finally meets one of the potential birthmothers. After meeting her, emailing her constantly, texting, and forming a relationship, she discovers that the woman was never pregnant at all. It was a scam, oddly enough. I was very surprised that anyone would pretend to be pregnant in order to meet with potential adoptive parents. I can't imagine what her motives were.

Although it was an interesting, well-written story, I was left slightly uncertain of what the author was trying to say. I think her point was how difficult it is to find a child to adopt. She could definitely have emphasized the point much more. She basically tells the story and that is the entire article. There isn't really any explanation of what she learned, or why it is relevant or anything like that. She did not any general statements to suggest that this is an actual issue rather than a weird one-time thing. If adoption is this hard for everyone, I think that is an important thing that ought to change. However, maybe this woman is unlucky. Or maybe it's easy to adopt from orphanages, while adopting from actual birth mothers is more difficult. The article included very little logos. Since it was a personal narrative, the appeal to ethos was strong. It would be very silly to question whether she has her facts straight. The appeal to pathos was also strong, as she described her longing for a child and her inability to become pregnant or adopt. However, I don't know if I would call her argument "persuasive" since I really can't say one way or another whether there was an argument. If she was simply telling a story, she told it well. If she had a greater purpose, however, she might have stated it more explicitly.

Article: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/my-bridge-to-nowhere/

Behind Romney’s change of heart on abortion

Regardless of how people feel about particular issues, such as abortions, or particular candidates, such as Romney, I think they should appreciate the fairness of this article. With so many people being ready to criticize politicians whenever they make a tiny mistake or silly comment or contradiction, it's nice to see someone who thinks before criticizing. With a combination of logos, ethos, and pathos, the author of this article convinced me that it's unfair to criticize politicians so quickly. In this particular instance, people are criticizing Romney from changing his opinion on abortions. He was once pro-choice and is now pro-life. Obviously, their are hundreds of critics ready to attack Romney for being inconsistent and "flip-flopping." However, the article argues that criticizing so quickly isn't fair. After all, it says, everyone changes their mind sometimes, especially when presented with new information or new circumstances. When you look at it that way, people who never change their minds appear rather stubborn. This article did not influence my personal opinions about the actual issues, but it convinced me that fairness is important when judging politicians. After all, everyone makes little mistakes or changes their mind sometimes. In the case of politicians, it just so happens that people are watching their every move and preparing to attack them when they do.


The article relied mostly on pathos. It made people stop and consider whether it is really so bad to change your mind occasionally. I think people reading this article would take a look at themselves and feel guilty for being such harsh judges. After all, we are all human and none of us are perfect. In addition, it describe Romney's careful consideration when considering the different sides of the abortion argument. In the end, it is hard to insist that it was merely a political move. Whether or not the reader agrees with Romney's pro-life decision, they have to admit that Romney seems to really believe in his decision. Logos is used as well. Facts and examples are included to support the author's assertions that Romney is not merely "flip-flopping" for political advantages. Much of the information on Romney's change of heart comes from William Hurlburt, who witnessed Romney's research and careful consideration first-hand. Finally, the author appeals to ethos when he identifies himself as "the man who instructed him in 2005 on the basics of embryonic life during the stem-cell research debate then taking place in Massachusetts" With these different rhetorical strategies, I find this article quite persuasive. I hope people will read this and be a little less quick to judge politicians.


article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behind-romneys-change-of-heart-on-abortion/2011/11/29/gIQAi1CFAO_story.html

Why We Spend, Why They Save

This article is about why Americans don't save as much money as people do in many other countries. I wondered if there was some trick to saving money. The article went on to explain that the idea of spending to promote the economy is not the best message to send people. In other countries, people are encouraged to be thrifty and save up money, and their economies are more stable because of it. This news interested me, because I have frequently heard that everyone must spend money in order for the economy to flourish. According to this article, that concept is flawed, and Americans need to do more saving and less spending, especially the people who cannot really afford to spend much at the moment. This made sense to me, because I am constantly hearing about people getting into debt and having financial issues. I have always wondered why people buy more than they can really afford. After all, I have never met anyone in my life who has owned nothing exceeding the bare necessities. Therefore, everyone could spend less, avoid debt, and still survive if they really wanted to. However, I understand that American society is constantly encouraging people to buy what they do not need and spend money they do not have. To defend itself, America also tells people that spending will help the economy. However, hopefully this article will wake people up and change our strategy.
The article relied almost entirely on logos. Unfortunately, this made it a bit boring. I found myself very bored with it after a few sentences, although the information it contained was useful and convincing. But as long as people can get through the article with falling asleep, they will find a great amount of evidence that would be very difficult to dispute. The article is full of statistics proving that Americans spend more, save less, and still are struggling economically compared to other countries. As soon as I finished reading it, I thought every citizen of America should know this, and perhaps we could finally change our behavior and improve the economy. Unfortunately, there are thousands of people who would be all too willing to describe the advantages of borrowing money and spending. Despite the popularity of that point of view, however, this article has a solid, logical argument that thoroughly convinced me of the truth behind it.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/why-we-spend-why-they-save.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Okay, seriously, what is it about Mitt Romney’s hair?

This article caught my attention because it seemed rather silly that an entire article was written on Mitt Romney's hair. It's one thing that people care so much about celebrities' styles, but worrying about the hairdos of politicians seemed to be taking things too far. However, this article was well-written and I think the author had an interesting point. She won me over by making fun of the obsession with hair. Obviously, she agrees with my opinion that hair shouldn't really matter. That said, I was much more open to what she had to say. Her appeal to pathos, pointing out the humor in people's obsession with Romney's hair, was very effective. She also had an appeal to logos. She quoted people who described Romney's hair and people who described his personality, pointing out surprising similarities. Despite what I originally thought when I first clicked on the link to this article, I found myself believing that Romney's hair might actually reflect who he is as a person. I think the article was written very well, because I was not very open to the author's argument, and yet her effective strategies won me over in the end.

Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/okay-seriously-what-is-it-about-mitt-romneys-hair/2011/03/04/gIQAbG38vN_blog.html

The problem with Republican support for waterboarding

This article interested me because it is obviously a very controversial subject. What I learned from the article however, was simply that there is not enough information on this subject. There is no clear knowledge whether using waterboarding is causing other countries to treat us more harshly. There is no research proving whether or not information gained through waterboarding could be gained through other, more humane methods. Basically, the costs and benefits do not seem to have been proven, so it seems impossible to me to decide whether waterboarding should be used or not. Thus, the article seemed to lack a logical argument. It asserted that waterboarding was wrong, but went on to say how no research existed proving anything. I suppose it appeals to pathos, because use of the word "torture" certainly turns some people against the idea instantly. In addition, there was some patriotic stuff about "setting an example" and all that jazz. In my opinion, none of that is what matters. If waterboarding can save large numbers of lives that can be saved no other way, it is an unfortunate necessity. If it produces nothing that couldn't be gained other ways, it is unnecessary and inhumane. However, no one seems to be proving anything one way or another.
That said, the article did a decent job of trying to convince readers that waterboarding should not be used. If he had more evidence to back up his claim, it certainly would have been a stronger argument. However, if no research exists that might help him, he did a pretty good job considering. He appeals strongly to pathos, as I have said, by encouraging people to imagine the same techniques being used on our soldiers. He also appeals to logos, suggesting that information gained through waterboarding might be gained a different way. He refers to knowledgeable people who have suggested that use of waterboarding will encourage other countries to treat our troops more brutally. In addition, he quotes Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann, who all support waterboarding. He makes them look a bit silly when they try to make it out as a humane interrogation technique rather than torture. I think this article certainly leaves room for debate, but I think the author did a fairly convincing job since the information he would need to be more convincing probably does not exist.

Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-problem-with-republican-support-for-waterboarding/2011/11/14/gIQA4pmIMN_story.html

Got More Voters? Get More Electoral Votes

This article caught my attention because it seemed to be suggesting some sort of alteration of the electoral college. The author was criticizing unfair voter practices, and suggesting possible methods to make voting more fair. Personally, I can't even begin to understand why the electoral college still exists. After all, America is based on the idea that all people are equal and that are government is of, by and for the people. Therefore, I see absolutely nothing that could justify a process that makes some votes count more than others. If more Americans vote for a candidate, that candidate should win. It is as simple as that. I find it disgusting that politicians focus on methods of cheating the system in order to win elections. How about focusing on the issues, and winning popularity through good ideas? But I guess it's impossible for anyone to get far in politics with that kind of thinking, which is too bad. Maybe if all the effort politicians put into meaningless propaganda and attempting to pass partisan legislation was put towards fixing national and international problems we would actually be accomplishing things.
That said, I still think the article was pretty good. It doesn't look like the electoral college will be disposed of anytime soon, so if other legislation can lessen the unfairness, that sounds great to me. It makes no sense that electoral college votes are based on population rather than voter turnout. People who do not vote are still being represented, which makes no sense, because their actual opinion is not being taken into account. The idea that the article suggests, which is to give electoral college bonuses to states with higher voter turnouts, seems like a great one to me.
The article appealed heavily to pathos and logos. It described the facts of unfair practices and ways that political parties attempt to rig the system. It is worded so that people see the article from the author's point of view. It talks about ideas like injustice, democracy, etc. that definitely bring out emotion in people. Hopefully people see the sense that this guy is making. Still, I can't wrap my head around the fact that our country doesn't not treat every vote equally. What I would like to know is who exactly is shutting down the attempts to do away with the electoral college entirely. I suppose it's ironic that if everyone's opinion mattered equally, perhaps the electoral college would be eliminated, but until it is eliminated people will never be equal.

Article: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/got-more-voters-get-more-electoral-votes/?ref=opinion

The Mysterious Benedict Society by Trenton Lee Stewart

This is what my friend wanted me to read, since apparently it was her favorite book of all time. It probably would have been my favorite book too, if I had read it when I was eight years old. That's not an insult though; this book was obviously written for little children, I thought the author did a spectacular job. I think little kids who enjoy Harry Potter or stuff like that would love this book, especially younger ones, because it doesn't involve the darkness and death that are often present in adventurous kids books. It seemed to be written very carefully, full of deliberate, good messages for children. The main characters, alone at the beginning, learned important lessons about conquering their fears, believing in themselves, and being true to their friends.
The protagonist's name is Reynie, and he and three other students are chosen from a large number of children that take a mysterious test. The four of them are sent to a strange island, where an evil scientist who runs a school for children is trying to take over the world. The children enroll in the institution, spy on him, and end up saving the day. Since this story is definitely aimed at young children, it is very unrealistic at parts. In real life, a story like this would probably involve lots of violence and people getting killed. But it is a great, happy story for little children. I might not recommend it to any of my classmates, but I think it is a fantastic choice for younger children.

Penn State’s abdication of legal and moral obligations

This article caught my attention because I had already noticed several articles about Penn State and was starting to wonder what was going on with it. As it turns out, there have been many instances of Penn State football players and officials sexually abusing little kids. Obviously, this article appealed strongly to pathos. Who wouldn't feel angry when they find out that people have witnessed football officials raping 10-year-old boys without doing anything about it? Logos is also appealed to as well. There are facts and numbers, so that readers are aware that this has happened on multiple occasions, with witnesses, and nothing has been done.
I should hope that just about everyone would agree with the writer of this article. Something should certainly be done about this. Personally, I think Penn State will get what's coming to it. If I've seen multiple articles about this issue in the last few minutes, it must be getting a lot of publicity. I'm sure there will be a high demand for action from people all over the country, and Penn State will be legally punished, and its reputation will be greatly damaged. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to the rest of the country that you cannot hope to get away with stuff like this. Eventually, especially for the individuals responsible, the facts will become public and your reputation will be destroyed. Perhaps this article will inspire people to start speaking out when they witness crimes like this. After all the horrible stuff described, I hope that this whole situation will at least prevent future crimes.

article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/penn-states-abdication-of-legal-and-moral-obligations/2011/11/08/gIQAalhK3M_story.html

No Such Place as ‘Post-Racial’ America

The author of this article is strongly opposed to the term "post-racial." In fact, he is against a lot of terms having to do with racism. Why? According to the article, "post-racial" is horrible for society because it allows people to live in their own fantasy world where race doesn't matter. The article relies mainly on pathos, because people will most likely get upset by the idea of people ignoring racism and allowing it to continue. The author also uses ethos to some extent, using large words like "obfuscating" to convince the reader he is smart. Thanks to english class, however, I know what these words mean. There is little appeal to logos here, which is perhaps a weakness, but it would be hard to incorporate logos in my opinion. Well, perhaps the author could have included more proof that racism still exists. Personally, I don't think anyone is under that delusion, but the author seems to think people are, so he is sort of contradicting himself in that sense.
I sort of think that the author of this article needs to relax a little. In fact, I have never really heard people say "post-racial," but that doesn't mean people don't use it. Still, I think everyone is aware that racism is still an issue. Maybe they just use this term to refer to a time period, not because they think it is a totally accurate term. I think we deserve to be pleased with our progress. A hundred and fifty years ago, black people were considered property. Now we have a black president. Of course, totally equality is what we really want, but we're definitely making progress. I think what we really need is time for the old way of thinking to die out. Hopefully, in a few generations, the term "post-racial" can be used, without being inaccurate at all.

article: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/no-such-place-as-post-racial-america/?ref=opinion

The question on everyone's mind

The question that this article is referring to is "What do you do for a living?" At first, upon reading this, I wondered why the author was reading into the question so much. It seemed innocent to me. Many people might enjoy talking about their jobs. Jobs can tell you what someone's interests and passions are. However, perhaps if that was all you cared about learning you could ask directly about interests, hobbies, etc. The author of this article has a good point. There is a good chance that someone who responds to this question will be instantly judged. Once the author logically leads the reader to this conclusion, he actually applies it to Occupy Wall Street. He thinks that perhaps people mainly want to be accepted and valued, instead of looked down upon because they aren't all doctors and lawyers. By the end of the article, I think the main focus is just to remind people that jobs, money, etc. don't matter. Perhaps the idea of "money isn't everything" is a bit cliche, but it's still true. If you assume a lawyer is happy and a cashier at McDonald's is sad (the examples used in the article), you may be right. However, that does not mean money brings happiness. It just means that those workers, like the people who judge them, have been raised to believe that your career and how much money you make represent who you are. The author backs up his arguments with personal experience; he travelled around, meeting new strangers, paying close attention to the questions they asked first. "What do you do for a living?" sometimes came before "What's your name?" I agree with the author when he concludes his article by saying "Now it just all seemed so sad"


Article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/opinion/granderson-what-do-you-do/index.html?hpt=op_bn4

Seeing Something, Saying Something

The author of this article wants to point out one of the positive uses of the web: It can be used to raise awareness about issues and make changes. Specifically, the article discusses Judge William Adams, who abused his daughter. She posted a video online, which gained a lot of attention. The article points out that whatever justice comes from this is because of the internet.
The article definitely appeals to ethos, since the example of a father abusing a disabled child is used. Obviously, the thought of that will upset many readers. The fact that the internet solved the issue implies that it can solve future issues, which is an appeal to logos. Readers will be upset by the situation, glad that there was a solution, and perhaps find a new reason to believe in the advantages of the web. The author seems convinced that many reasons have a belief that the internet, or at least the social aspect of it, is mainly a bad thing. He concedes that in some cases, internet publicity can ruin lives and be a very bad thing. However, the main point is to convince people that the internet has some useful applications, and issues like child abuse, which seem impossible to ever eradicate completely, can be improved greatly through the use of the internet.

article: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/seeing_something_saying_something/

The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

I finished The Phantom of the Opera yesterday, and I can honestly say it was one of the best books I have ever read. It was a translation of the french book, which is kind of depressing, because I feel like I should read it in its native language. Unfortunately, I am not quite fluent in French.
I would probably recommend this book to most people. Well, depending on what they like. As long as they aren't afraid of books that were written more than a few years ago. The book was written in the early 1900s, so the writing is a bit different than books that are written today. But if you aren't afraid of a bit of a challenge, I totally think you should read it. It's too bad the author's dead, or they could see all of these lovely things I'm saying and make me famous. Except for that issue I mentioned earlier, with the author speaking French and all that.
I don't want to summarize the book, because that would give away all the fun surprises, but I'll say what I can about it. The book is about, not surprisingly, the Opera Ghost that people believed to live in the Paris Opera House. The story has everything that a good story should have: romance, action, suspense, mystery, humor and interesting characters. It's beautifully written and the author clearly put a lot of thought and care into it.
It's difficult to say anything about the plot without giving anything away, but I suppose people might like to know a bit about the story. The book takes place almost entirely inside the Paris Opera House. The people who spend their time there- singers, dancers, workers- are all suspicious of a ghost that haunts the building. When the opera house changes managers, the new partners are skeptical when the ghost demands a regular payment from them as well as his own reserved area to sit in during the shows. Meanwhile, Raoul de Chagny comes into the story, in love with one of the opera singers who has been his friend since childhood. When he tries to approach her, he quickly realizes there is something strange going on, and the mystery behind the Opera Ghost is slowly unraveled. The story is extremely powerful and emotional, and has really left me thinking. I think it is definitely worth reading to anyone who is interested.

Studied: The Dropout vs. the Graduate

This article caught my attention because it is a response to an editorial that Jim blogged about recently. This person was arguing against Michael Ellsberg, who believed that attending college was overrated. This letter to the editor argues that even if we do need more entrepreneurs, going to college can still be helpful. The article argues that colleges offer useful classes such as web design, and set students up to earn more money in the jobs they recieve after college. Since entrepreneurs generally need day jobs while their business is being created, it could help them to have attended colleges.
However, I think there is a considerable flaw in the writer's logic. If a college graduate earns more in their day job than a drop out, is it enough to make up for the cost of college tuition? After all, the dropout will have all the money they might have spent on college to help them start up their business. I think this might help them more than the money they would earn as a wage-earner after college. Still, I don't have much background knowledge on these issues. If the writer of this letter wanted to convince me, they would probably need more statistics and evidence to back it up.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/opinion/studied-the-dropout-vs-the-graduate.html?ref=opinion

The $350 Honk

This article was about the $350 fine a driver can recieve in New York for "unnecessary honking." The author explained that people are honking as a way of chastising people instead of warning them. Most of the author's points are valid, without much need for proof. Everybody is aware that horns are used too much, and that they are seen as an insult today. It is also pretty obvious that not many people actually recieve the tickets that they should get. Therefore, the author's point, which is that drivers should honk less, is true. However, I do not think that a fine for honking is very likely to work. I think it is much too difficult to actually catch people in the act, and if hardly anyone is caught, everyone will take the chance and honk anyway. However, I agree that it would be much better if people used horns as warnings only.

article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/opinion/the-350-honk.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Outside Reading

So there's a bit of a story behind me choosing my outside reading book. I don't know if anyone is interested in hearing about it, but here it is. My kindle decided to conveniently stop working about a week ago. Apparantly lines sometimes appear on the screen, and this problem is unfixable, and if you're warranty is expired it can't be replaced unless you pay $85. Isn't that great. Anyway, I went to my neighbor's house, being too lazy to go to a bookstore or library. I asked her if she had any books I could read, and everyone who was in the house at the time had a different opinion of what I should read. So I guess I'll just read all of them. The Phantom of the Opera will be my outside reading book. My friend wanted me to read The Mysterious Benedict Society, which was apparantly her favorite book for a long time. However, since she hasn't touched it since she was 10, I wasn't convinced it would be the best option for my AP English class. But I'll read it and blog about it to make her happy, being the good friend that I am :).

Sticky Fingers, Male and Female

This article discusses the differences between men and women when it comes to shoplifting. It surprised me slightly to learn that men steal more than women on average. The article used lots of statistics and facts. However, I don't think the article was really trying to accomplish a specific point. Well, they definitely wanted to disprove the stereotypical idea that women are the biggest shoplifters. However, that was not difficult to accomplish. I think saying "a large study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry in 2008 found that men shoplifted more than women" pretty much established that fact, without leaving much room for argument. Beyond that, I think the article was mostly informative and speculative. It discussed the differences between men and women: what they steal, how they feel about it, etc. However, the lingering question seemed to be "why do people shoplift, and how can it be prevented?" I have to agree with the author of the article on this one- maybe it's more poetic than scientific. I'm sure people steal for all sorts of psychological reasons, but I think there are still people who steal just for fun, to save money, etc. I don't think it's really a problem that can be "solved," except, perhaps, with better security in stores. Or maybe if major religions started putting more emphasis on how stealing is a sin. But I don't think psychologists are ever going to be able to fix it.

article: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/can_the_gop_be_embarrassed_on_jobs/

Obama's Futile Job Tour

This article concerns Obama's attempt to pass the American Jobs Act, an attempt to ease the unemployment  problem in America. In particular, the act involves providing $30 billion to hire or keep teachers, police officers and fire fighters. The money would be obtained by taxes on the wealthy. Personally, I think it seems like a good idea. After all, I think we've all seen first hand that we need more money for teachers. Hanover High School has less teachers every year, and as a result we have less choices for classes we want to take. The fact that police officers and firefighters are losing their jobs, which I did not know was a problem, is also concerning. According to the article, firefighters are even closing stations down because they can't afford to have so many. To me, that seems unacceptable. I understand that raising taxes is never fun, but I don't think giving tax breaks to America's wealthiest citizens makes sense either. I think it's clear that something needs to be done, and we need to get the money somewhere. Raising taxes on working families who are already struggling doesn't make any sense to me. Taxing people who can afford it does.
The article's purpose, however, was not to persuade readers to support the idea. The article was saying that the act will not be passed, because Republicans in Congress will definitely shut it down. However, the article was pretty clear that it thought Obama's ideas made sense. The article convinced me of that too, using the stories of teachers, policemen, and firemen to show how desperately we need change. The article also convinced me that politics are getting in the way of progress. If Republicans shut down all of Obama's moves, and Obama doesn't let any Republican bills pass, we won't get anywhere. Personally, I think governments have been most efficient when one party was in control, because that party can do whatever it wants without interference. Regardless of which strategy we use for solving today's problems, we need to start doing something immediately. In cases like these, I think the balance between parties in government can be a bad thing, because they only serve to stop the other parties from accomplishing anything.
The article raised the question: Why is Obama pushing this plan if it is destined to fail? The article believes it is simply a political move. If Obama can say "I tried to create jobs, but the Republicans stopped me," in the next election, it will help him. However, regardless of the motives behind it, I think the attempt to create jobs was a good thing, and we need to start actually making things happen.

Article: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/can_the_gop_be_embarrassed_on_jobs/

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/views-to-a-kill/?ref=opinion

     This article was very interesting. It discusses the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki by the United States government.
     I think the article had a fairly pursuasive argument. It attempts to convince the reader that such assassinations are not okay. It certainly has a strong appeal to logos. How can people who are against the death penalty support the killing of an alleged criminal who has not been given any sort of trial? The fact that the Obama administration does not publicize such things is also a sign that this is not an acceptable thing. The article says, "American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials." If this is true, I think it would be difficult to argue that it is totally okay.
     The article appeals to pathos too. It mentions the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, John Lennon, and JFK, among others. This could certainly get readers thinking of the term "assassination" in the worst light possible.

          What do I think of this article? Well, the term "assassinate" does not particularly bother me. Comparing the assassination of Lincoln to that of Osama bin Laden seems a bit silly. In fact, the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki  doesn't particularly upset me either. If the war on terror is really a war, then it seems necessary. Killing powerful individuals seems more effective than killing thousands of soldiers with wives and children.
     However, the article did make me a little worried. I have been raised to believe that our country is "the land of the free." We are free to say what we want, think what we want, etc. Part of this, I believe, is being free to know what is going on in our government. The idea of our government doing anything secretly is really what I find concerning. If our president can choose to kill any individual, with "no public record," then I think the whole checks-and-balances system of our government isn't working out the way it should.
    The article, however, did not fully convince me that it was one hundred percent factual. I am left hoping that is not true, or at least not as bad as the article says it is. If our president is actually controlling groups of assassins that kill any individual they choose, without attempting to capture them and give them a trial, I think people should be worried.

article: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/views-to-a-kill/?ref=opinion

The Bleakness of the Bullied

This article sounded sort of interesting. I know there are a lot of anti-bullying articles written these days. This particular article didn't have anything to do with news, or recent research, or anything like that. It was just a simple reminder to be careful how you treat other people.
The author relied almost completely on pathos. He told the emotional story of his near-suicide-attempt when he was only eight years old. In my opinion, it was very powerful. After all, it's hard to believe that someone that young could be so seriously upset by bullying that they would commit suicide. He nearly took a bottle full of aspirin, but at the last moment he remembered a song that his mom liked to sing, and he changed his mind. It was definitely a very sentimental article.
The author appealed to logos in a more indirect way. The story isn't just a random story to make you sad. It leaves you thinking, "If this happened to a random eight year old kid, who never planned it or mentioned it until now, how many almost-suicidal people could be out there, without anyone knowing?" The author talks about the wisdom that comes with age, and the fact that children haven't acquired that wisdom, and are therefore at risk.
Personally, I think bullying is an interesting topic. It is obviously a terrible thing, especially when kids are dying because of it. I think the author's reminder is important to everyone: be careful of the way you treat other people.
However, I think there may be a more important lesson people can learn from this. After all, the author turned into a successful writer and admires what he has learned throughout his life, talking about "years passed, hurdles overcome, strength summoned, resilience realized, selves discovered and accepted, hearts broken but mended and love experienced in the fullest, truest majesty that the word deserves." I think everybody should keep this in mind. Anyone who is deeply bothered by bullies, and definitely anyone who ever considers suicide, should remember to look at the big picture and hope that things can get better. I think these are two good messages to send people: Be careful how your actions affect other people, and always remember that there are good things in life too, despite what life is like now.

article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/opinion/blow-the-bleakness-of-the-bullied.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

What's inside “The Human Centipede”?

This article caught my eye because I have heard a lot about The Human Centipede, though I have never seen it. I definitely wondered what this article would have to say. Well, it turns out that the original movie is being made into a trilogy, and the writer of the article has seen the second movie. According to the him, the next movie is terrible and has no value at all. This does not surprise me, because from what I hear, the first one did not sound very meaningful or intellectually stimulating. The new one is about another character, who saw The Human Centipede and tries to imitate it, but with twelve people instead of three. If this movie is released in theaters, I bet I'm going to hear a lot about it. It's supposed to make the first one look like "My Little Pony." The article convinced me pretty quickly, but that isn't really much of a feat. After all, if I watched a movie like this, I would not be searching for any deep meaning or insight into life. However, the author actually says he would be willing to defend the first movie, so the second must be really bad. Apparantly it rips off a variety of other movies, but then again, I think most modern horror movies are far from original. I definitely agree with the author's point that the maker of this movie probably shouldn't gain any wide respect. It seems to me like a pretty meaningless movie that is being created for money, since I think many people will end up watching it. The author mainly depends on ethos, I think, because he refers to many other movies and I am fairly convinced that this guy knows what he's talking about.

Article: http://entertainment.salon.com/2011/10/07/human_centipede_ii/

For soldiers, the enemy may be themselves

This article caught my attention because I wanted to know what the title meant. How could our soldiers hurt themselves more than the enemy could hurt them? The article turned out to be about suicide. I suppose it makes sense that people who go to war would have a higher suicide rate. It turns out, however, that 20 percent of all suicides are veterans. Wow. When I think of suicide, usually I think of teenagers. This article was very relevant to the books we're reading, I think. When I read The Things They Carried, I kept thinking how weird it must be to go back to normal life after a war. It seems like everything would seem superficial and unimportant. Obviously, many people have trouble with it. This article made me think of the guy in the book who kept driving around the lake. He had no one to talk to, and eventually killed himself.
The article suggests that perhaps people who join the army are already more prone to suicide. A lot of drug addicts and criminals are allowed to join the army. Whether this is true or not, however, the author insists that there is something we should do about it. However, I honestly can't imagine how we could fix the situation. Can we afford to be stricter about who can join? Can we take away the unpleasantness of war? I think this might just be one of the terrible effects of war. Maybe we could try to ease the problem, but I don't think it can be eliminated. I think the only real solution is to do what we can to achieve peace.

article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/06/for-soldiers-enemy-may-themselves/SCQuVP2NXnoxWNXkCaRbSO/story.xml

38 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police

Would I call the police if I heard someone getting stabbed to death outside my house? Well, if someone asked me that without saying anything else, I would say yes without hesitation. However, I assume most people would say yes, too. Yet the 38 people who were actually in the situation didn't call the police. This leads me to believe that most people who would claim that they would call the police would be lying, and I might be included. As much as I'd like to think I would do the right thing, I would have to say it would depend on the circumstances. "I was tired" sounds like a poor excuse. However, I will admit that if I was woken up by the noises in the middle of the night, I might be too tired to process what was happening. Sometimes when I wake up I discover I have turned my alarm clock off with no memory of doing so. I might wake up, hear what was happening outside, but be too delirious to really do anything and simply fall asleep. Another excuse was someone who thought it was lovers fighting. I definitely would not call the police if I was not aware of the gravity of the situation. Finally, if I saw the killer run away, and saw the victim returning home, seemingly unhurt, I might think things were fine. Basically, I think I would call the police if I was fully aware of what was happening. I would have to be conscious and awake, and I would have to realize that it was literally murder that was occurring.
Would I get involved in the situation? That would be very unlikely. After all, even if I thought getting involved would be helpful, I would be the last person in my home that would make sense to do something. If I was an adult living alone, I still doubt I would try and fight the murderer. I might come outside and say something; if the murderer knew I called the police, he might run away without me putting myself in any danger. The only time I think I might possibly endanger myself would be if it was someone close to me being attacked. Even then, I might be too scared in the actual circumstances.

The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot

If anyone wants to read this article and tell me that I'm missing something, I would be pretty relieved. The article caught my eye because of its accusation against the FBI; after all, I have always thought the FBI was on my side. The article says that, "Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out -- only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI." Wow. What's even more shocking is that the article never gave a shred of evidence to back up this claim. It treated it as though it was a well-known, proven fact. If this is a fact, feel free to fill me in, because it's news to me. If it isn't an established fact, whoever wrote this article could definitely learn a little from our english textbook. It has no appeal to logos whatsoever. Sure, it goes on to explain why the attacks on our country shouldn't be considered "terrorist attacks," because we are at war and it is perfectly normal to be attacked in times of war. Well, I have a few questions for you, Mr. Glenn Greenwald. Since we are engaged in a "war on terror," why wouldn't the attacks, if part of the war, be considered terrorist attacks? Even if they aren't terrorist attacks, what does it matter? Shouldn't we defend our country and the lives of its civilians? The article is literally written with the obvious assumption that all of its accusations against the FBI have been proven true. It talks about why they do what they do and criticizes them, but it never questions if the FBI is really creating its own terrorist attacks. To me, it sounds like total nonsense. Perhaps, however, the way the article is written might convince some people. If the author totally made this idea up and has no evidence, I'd say he did a pretty good job considering. The dialect sounds pretty educated, and the tone begins rather sarcastically, which I think could be effective in sounding true to readers, especially those who like to question authorities. Some logical evidence is used to support the idea that the "terrorist attacks" occurring are not actually "terrorist attacks." Perhaps the author's logical argument in this area will convince people that he must have logical reasons for his other ideas too. However, I will be the first to "beg the question" in this case. How do we know that the FBI is actually fabricating terrorist attacks?

Article: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/fbi/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/29/fbi_terror

The Fundamental Right

Living in Massachusetts and reading about history in school, sometimes I forget that problems like discrimination are still issues, even in my society today. After all, my textbooks themselves tell me that racism and intolerance are wron; doesn't this mean that that fact has been accepted by the world, or at least the country? Apparantly not. If people were simply acting intolerant towards one another, that would be one thing, but to think that there are still voting laws that discriminate is hard for me to believe. This isn't just private, individual intolerance; this is being condoned by the government!
Even if a state is completely free of any sort of discrimination, I don't see why it would mind having to allow Congress to inspect its laws first. If its laws are all fair, they have nothing to worry about. I think the author feels the same way I do. In an early sentence that sums up the article, the author says, "...legal challenges to the federal voting rights law are increasing even as they highlight the racial injustices that make it essential." The term racial injustice should make any intelligent reader grow concerned. The author causes the voting rights law essential, which makes his stance crystal clear; he does not think the law should be removed. He summarizes the reasons that people object to the law, making him appear to have analyzed both sides of the issue. He then explains why the law is justified, using fairly inarguable evidence from history. The Supreme Court Judge who decided that the law should continue believes that racist laws are still being created, and the law is still necessary. I think the article should be effective in convincing any reader that the judge made the right choice. Assuming that the reader is against discrimination, the facts presented are undeniable.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/opinion/the-fundamental-right.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

Facebook changes spark outrage, serve as warning

This article definitely caught my eye because I had noticed the Facebook changes only an hour or so earlier. When I logged on, I saw that someone's status was complaining about the changes, and I liked the status. The writer of this article, however, is suggesting that we should be reminded that Facebook must be controlling us if people really care that much. One of his friends, he says, is now refusing to use Facebook.
To be honest, I think the article is a bit of an overreaction. Unless I'm mistaken, most people who complain about Facebook are just a little annoyed, and their statuses don't really mean anything. After all, they're probably logged onto Facebook when they write their statuses, so it makes sense that that's what they'd write about. This article says, "When we give a single company — whether it's Facebook or Twitter or Google — so much control over how we communicate with others, we're giving up an awful lot." Personally, I think this is a bit silly. Almost everyone I know has a Facebook, and no one I know is completely controlled by it. I don't know who the article is targetting, but I doubt it's going to get through to many people. If it wants people to spend less time on it, it doesn't have a very strong argument, except that the Facebook changes are upsetting people, which hardly seems like an argument to me. However, the article does predict that its users aren't going anywhere, so perhaps the article is just a prediction, not really wanting people to change their habits.

See Article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/09/facebook_change.html

No Room For Tolerance

This article caught my attention because it made me wonder what sort of intolerance was happening, and where. It turns out that in this case, it is a religious issue. Islamic people are running into difficulty trying to construct a mosque in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The author makes his opinion clear from the start; he says that Mayor Bloomberg "rightly stood up for religious liberty" when he defended the construction of a mosque in Manhatten. The author's word choice clearly indicates that preventing people from building a mosque is prejudice. Since most Americans are raised to believe in equality, tolerance, etc., I think the author's strategy should be effective in convincing them that what's happening in Bridgewater is wrong. To make sure the audience is convinced that the issue is merely one of prejudice, he presents a variety of logical evidence. For example, people are fighting the mosque by arguing that it will create a traffic problem, even though all the evidence suggests that the effect on traffic will be minimal. Overall, I think this article is sensible and will probably convince most readers that the mosque in Bridgewater ought to be built.

See Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/opinion/no-room-for-tolerance.html?_r=1&ref=opinion