Argument Analysis

While reading through the opinion section of the New York Times the other day, I noticed an article about the current financial crisis with a title I was not expecting, “A Cure For Greed” by Ecuardo Porter. In this article, Porter argued that the primary cause for the current financial crisis is greed and how greed is very difficult to escape from. At first his argument sounded too simple, but as Porter wrote, he was able to make a convincing argument.

He included three main pieces of evidence that supported his argument very well. In the first piece of evidence, he pointed out the inevitability of greed, “the Soviet Union deployed the entire power of the state to stamp out greed,” however, it “proved insufficient to blot out this insidious sin”. In the second piece of evidence, he wrote about how the capitalist country we live in encourages greed making it difficult to escape from, “economists built a theory of the world that everyone benefits when we seek to maximize our own individual welfare.” In his third piece of evidence, he reminded us of the mindset people had during the Reagan Revolution, which was right before the financial markets crashed, “the path to prosperity for all requires removing every obstacle to utility of maximization, including most regulations and taxes”. Each of the examples he used supported his argument and in each he was appealing to logic. In his concluding paragraph, he sought a solution. He wanted to “put fear back in the picture”. Here he appealed to one’s emotion, for at the moment everyone is scared.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29mon4.html

"Perilous Times" in Pakistan

In Pakistan on September 20, a massive suicide bombing took place at the Islamabad Marriott Hotel, killing at least sixty people and wounding more than 250. It occurred the same day the new president of Pakistan, Zardari, made his first speech to Parliament regarding the fight against terrorism. While reading this article, I immediately thought back to the discussion we had in class the other day about the different ways people handle “perilous times”. Even though we were discussing how the Puritans dealt with “perilous times”, I found that the people of Pakistan dealt with these times similarly. For example, the Puritans would doubt themselves/others and in turn look to an authority figure for security just like the people of Pakistan. After the bombing occurred, the natives were scared. Zardari immediately took a stand comforting the Pakistani people. He “strongly condemned the bombing…and said the perpetrators would be brought to justice. He appealed to the public to remain calm” (Washington Post).

Another important step that Zardari took was bringing up the idea of remaining united in order to overcome this obstacle, “This is terrorism, and we have to fight it together as a nation”. The idea of uniting under a single cause is a reoccurring theme throughout history. When people are doubtful or in a time of fear, coming together and experiencing a sense of unity is a comforting feeling. It feels as though purely the number of supporters one has can overcome anything.

With any group one looks at, it seems as though everyone handles “perilous times” in a similar way. Observing groups after times like these is actually a very good way to analyze human nature. It is one of the only instances where one is able to catch the immediate reactions of humans and therefore one discovers human nature in the most genuine form.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092000910.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Discrimination still an issue?

Football season just started and I could not help but notice the missing Illini mascot at the beginning of this year's games. As most people know, the Illini mascot was removed because it was considered offensive to Native Americans...the face paint, colorful wardrobe, and feathery headdress were too stereotypical. Being reminded of this controversy, I found myself caught a little off guard. I felt ignorant, for I did not realize that contemporary Native Americans were still facing problems with racial discrimination. It seems so far behind us that racial discrimination was an issue, yet events such as these remind us that Native Americans are still facing these problems today.

While many were pleased with the decision to remove the Chief, there were many others who aggressively opposed it. Some became so tied to the tradition they were willing to pay large amounts of money to preserve it if they could. It is understandable how people can become tied to certain traditions, especially ones lasting for eighty-one years, however, there comes a point where one has to decide which side is more important; keeping the mascot even though it is considered offensive to Native American culture or letting it go and showing respect?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/ncaabasketball/04cheer.html

first post

this is my first post