Are More Guns the Answer?

 The search for sources to use in a campus gun control proposal led to a Newsweek article written by Suzanne Smalley on college violence and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Despite attempts over the past few years to stop Virginia Tech-style massacres, there was an incident at Northern Illinois University. Fifteen students were wounded and five were killed in addition to the shooter himself, underscoring the vulnerability of students and faculty in college. “Concealed Carry” aimed to change that by pushing legislation to allow students to carry licensed, concealed weapons. In the column, Suzanne presents the non-profit’s viewpoint in an interview with W. Scott Lewis, one of its board members and spokesman.  

Smalley paraphrased Lewis’ position on concealed carry laws as he used universities in Colorado and Utah as examples where the most lenient policies saw no incidents of violence. She then started the interview, asking Lewis about the benefits of licensed carriers on campus. He noted flaws in campus police’s response to class shootings and stressed the importance of someone being able to “mitigate” the situation the moment it starts. Smalley then asked for his answer to a Virginia Tech shooting victim’s opposition to concealed carry proposals because of students’ ages and use of alcohol. He countered, noting that the purpose of the law would be to allow people who already meet the requirements for a concealed license would be able to carry on campus, instead of those that are irresponsible and reckless. This is important because it gets to one of the main points of opposition and addressed its concerns, as well as clarifying the intention of the proposal. Although there is an assumption that everyone eligible to attain a license is emotionally and mentally sound, those that do are trained and prepared to handle weapons responsibly. The real question is whether or not more people just having guns is enough.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/14/more-guns-on-campus.html

The Case Against Tax Cuts

The discussion in this week’s class turned to proposals. Proposals define a problem and its causes, present a step-by-step plan to address it, and convince the audience that the devised plan is the best solution. An article that used these elements effectively is James Kwak’s open letter to President Obama about the looming debate over whether or not to extending the “Bush Tax Cuts.” He starts by defining the expiring tax cut policy as benefiting the rich over the middle class and emphasizes its effects, even pleading with the President in his introduction. 

To further his argument, he analyzed the problem, citing how the top quintile of the population will receive over 65% of the benefit from the policy. He also weighed the policy’s effects on economic growth and the federal deficit. He then linked the deficit problem to the government’s perception on how to deal with Social Security and Medicare. Kwak laid out a detailed plan (in the form of a speech) for the president to take a position against extending the policy, and an explanation of how it actually benefits the middle class.

Kwak does an analysis of the costs and benefits of letting the tax cuts sunset, conceding that the middle class would lose an estimated $880 in returns. However, the plan would also create an estimated $3.7 trillion reduction in projected national debt. In addition, it would cripple the argument to make substantial cuts to Medicare and Social Security, which overwhelmingly help the middle class over the wealthy. The presidential speech example serves as the conclusion of the proposal. The closing argument looks to the future and takes a decisive tone to protect the social safety net, as well as tackle the country’s deficit and disparity problems now instead of forcing the coming generations to pay for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-kwak/obama-bush-tax-cuts-compromise-_b_783356.html

Playing Both Sides in the War Against Obesity

There was an interesting article this week about the Federal Government’s role in an anti-obesity campaign while simultaneously working with corporations to sell high-fat, high-calorie dairy products to the American people. The article began with Domino’s Pizza and its slumping sales, as well as its sub-par reputation last year. Domino’s was able to kick-start a new marketing campaign with the help of a corporation called Dairy Management, after the company was panned for having some of the “worst tasting pies.” One could argue that the move was justifiable, given the need for businesses to thrive in a fragile economy, as well as benefit to consumers. The partnership was wildly successful, as consumers favored the heavier cheese pizza, restoring the company’s reputation and elevating sales to double digits. Dairy Management was created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and was effectively able to not only make Domino’s pizza more attractive, but also sell cheese as a health benefit. Federal warnings about saturated fat progressively turned much of the population to low-fat milk and away from whole milk and other dairy products. In the article, the Department of Agriculture stated that decreased milk consumption across the U.S. made cheese an alternative, important source of calcium.

Problems with this argument come up with analysis of Domino’s new products, as well as the government’s interests in the dairy industry. For starters, each slice of Domino’s new pizza has two thirds of daily intake of saturated fat, and increases risk of heart disease. The Department of Agriculture leads the national anti-obesity campaign, which discourages eating large amounts of saturated fat and calories, like those in Domino’s Dairy Management-engineered products. The government created Dairy Management to support the dairy industry through marketing, and encouraged increased consumption of milk and cheese products as a means of weight loss. However, despite suggesting cheese as an important source of calcium, Dept. of Agriculture conceded that it is high in saturated fat. Also, a 2004 study by Jean Harvey-Berino, who chairs the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Vermont, found that the calcium increase from these products yielded no evidence of weight loss. All things considered, the joint venture gave Domino’s a crucial boost in the worst economic environment since the 1930’s, failed to warn consumers about the risks of its products. The campaign is uninformative at best and dishonest at its worst.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/11/07/1818826/watch-your-weight-and-pass-the.html

Stop Political Correctness for the Right Reasons

In the wake of NPR firing Juan Williams, Michael Moore wrote him an open letter, acknowledging that his comments about Muslims, terrorism and political correctness weren’t grounds for dismissal. He stopped far short of giving him a pass however, briefly jabbing him on his motivation to contribute to Fox. He then looked beyond NPR’s judgment, examining half-truths and distortions in statements Williams made about Faisal Shahzad and the motivations of terrorists. He concluded with a challenge for Williams to use his new deal with Fox to invite Moore on for “in-depth discussions about the terrorists' real motivations.” Moore made a compelling argument both in defense of Williams’ call to speak plainly about terrorism, but also to take that opportunity to tell the truth.

Michael Moore used ethos in demonstrating his moral character by insisting that Juan Williams use his newly-attained position with Fox to finally allow the truth to be heard about why terrorists do what they do. The American people value the truth over fabrications and posturing on such issues and the article clearly called Williams’ bluff. This prompts readers to pay closer attention to his rhetoric as he starts contributing to Fox exclusively. 

Regardless of the political affiliation of the readers, the article uses pathos to tap into frustration over the whole firing/censorship debacle. Conservatives would be drawn in with Moore calling NPR out on their decision, and Liberals would laud the call for a discussion about what really drives people to extremism. Moore’s sense of urgency became evident in his phrasing, suggesting that Juan hasn’t gone “far enough”, and that he should join him on a “mission” to inform people of the truth. 

He also employed logos to make his case, citing quotes of Shahzad from various sources which contrast with William’s account. The inconsistencies are stark, showing misinterpretation of Shahzad’s motives at best and divisive propaganda at worst. This is the most effective argument for the honest political discussion about the issue that Moore is referring to.

In both his defense and criticism of Williams, Michael Moore gave a provocative, effective call to action to inform citizens of what’s really behind the terrorist threat. The article attempted to take the problem of the media’s overreaction and lack of discourse and turn it into a positive dialogue; One that will inform citizens instead of play to their fears and further confuse them with contradictions.

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/juan-williams-is-right-po_b_772766.html

Five Years Left for the Paper Book?

In class this week, we did an exercise on defining the logos appeal in the analysis of an argument. I found a CNN article this evening on the replacement of the traditional paper book with the eBook.  It continues to be a fascinating and divisive subject, so I thought it would be interesting to determine the argument’s effectiveness. 

Nicolas Negroponte, founder of One Laptop per Child, frames the argument in terms of efficiency. He suggests that it would be impractical to provide books for nearly 500,000 people in parts of Africa. Then, he notes the advantage of eBooks to easily multiply 100 books into 100,000 versus having to print each of them separately. This is a very effective, pragmatic point. Having a preference for the experience of owning and reading a physical book is one thing, but that use case simply does not support the education of such large a population of people with limited time and financial resources. 

Negroponte also measures the global reach of eBooks by its establishment as a standard form of reading material and educational tool. He turns assumptions about development on their heads, suggesting that developing countries are actually adopting the eBook at a faster rate than developed nations like the United States. He rationalizes this claim by comparing it with the assimilation of cell phones. This makes perfect sense, as it is usually much easier to teach people a skill or how to use a tool for the first time than to recondition them; as was the case with land-line to wireless phone usage in the US and other first world countries.

Technological innovation is our future. The eBook is outpacing the physical book just as the printed word did handwritten one. Now that’s not to say that books will be completely obsolete in the foreseeable future; but the article does make a strong case for the inevitability of the eBook taking its place.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/17/negroponte.ebooks/index.html?hpt=T2

Analyzing the Rhetoric

This week in English class, we discussed rhetorical analysis and how rhetoric is used to persuade an audience. After a week of high profile drama about the housing crisis in the news, I found a McClatchy article by Greg Gordon about the former Secretary of the Treasury and how his action (or inaction in this case) helped Goldman Sachs instead of millions of people facing foreclosure. With all the confusion the American public is facing over this issue, I thought it was a great subject to pull apart and examine.

A major part of the discussion in class was about the use of “proofs” used to persuade the audience. There was evidence of those proofs - ethos, pathos, and logos early on in the article. Various credible sources are used as ethos to shed light on the decisions made by the Secretary and the Fed Chairman, among others. Gordon uses accounts from different sources, including FBI director Chris Swecker, mortgage broker Michael Blomquist, and former senior thrift regulator William Black; who testified before Congress and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on the subject.  Black gives a scathing critique of the Secretary, citing his years of experience as an executive at Goldman, the same company that helped create the dysfunction in the market, and stood to gain the most as nearly everyone else reaped the consequences. It even uses a list created by regulators of the actions that could have been taken to hedge against the bad loans that were created to fuel the crisis.

The vast majority of Americans are still outraged and cynical about the government’s role in allowing the housing bubble to grow and burst. Gordon uses pathos to tap into those very emotions, referring to Secretary Paulson’s or the government’s “failure” to act or help stabilize the crisis. Failure is used repeatedly, and implies that the administration directly or indirectly allowed much of the financial fallout.

Gordon used “logos” or compiled logical reasoning to drive home the point about the ties between the Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs. He noted that not only did inaction against mortgage fail to stop the housing sector; it kept money going to that bank, and several others on Wall Street. He backtracked through the events, following Paulson’s lingering ties to Goldman, even after leaving as an executive. He tied this to the fact that Paulson should have and almost certainly knew about the bank’s practices and how they posed an existential threat to the financial system as a whole.

The article was very insightful and eye-opening, calling greater attention to the mistakes that were made and the opportunities missed to avoid the great recession. Although some politicians went out of their way shift the blame to other parties, this article is very compelling and raises serious questions about the Treasury, the banks, and the Federal Reserve.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/10/101753/inaction-by-treasurys-paulson.html

Real Peace or More of the Same?

Israel’s 10-month settlement-building moratorium drew to a close this week, amid a high-stakes round of peace talks. Seen by some as a last-ditch effort at securing peace in the region, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to walk out if the construction continued. However, Prime Minister Netanyahu began damage control just minutes after the construction resumed; reaching out to Secretary Clinton as well as dignitaries from Jordan and Egypt to help keep the situation from falling apart completely.


Much of this sounds like reasons the two sides have failed to come to an agreement in the past. However, there are some encouraging signs that things could still take a turn for the better. In an interview, the leader of settlement construction said the end of the slowdown did not mean that the work would start up immediately. This buys both Netanyahu and Abbas more time to negotiate a deal on the construction issue and secure the viability of further peace talks. Although President Abbas still faces opposition to any flexibility in conditions from Hamas and other Palestinian groups, he ruled out a violent demonstration in response to the construction and still seems at least somewhat open to making a deal.


As all of this plays out in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, stakes are nearly as high for the other players involved. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama is much more aggressive about brokering a peace deal. Much of US relations with Israel, as well as the greater Middle East are and will be shaped by this issue. It also shapes our strategy with Iran, as a Palestinian state cripples President Ahmadinejad’s justification and traction in threatening Israel. Despite their long history of bilateral violence and failed attempts at peace, this is the closest both sides have come to turning a page in history. Let’s just hope it works before the construction buries any possibility of future talks.

Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39368869/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

All’s Well That Ends Well, Right?

When it comes to natural and man-made disasters, resolving the exigent crisis is only the first step on the road to recovery. This is the case with the gulf states and the BP oil spill. MSNBC and the Associated Press reported on Sunday that at long last, BP killed the once-gushing well in the Gulf of Mexico, putting an end to part of the worst environmental disaster the US has ever faced. At 5:54 a.m. CDT, the final pressure test was completed. It’s over. The well-kill part of the project, that is. Although the media attention may fade as time passes, it will take years to recuperate from the loss and damages of the spill.

The “dead well” milestone comes at great cost to BP, the wildlife of the area, the fishermen, shop-owners, and others who make their living in the gulf. The initial blast from the blown-out well killed 11 men working on the rig, and an estimated 206 million gallons of oil (which is possibly a low estimate) gushed into the gulf. The oil itself continues to wash ashore, which dwindled tourism to the area all summer, ruined the fishing season before it got started, and the seafood the gulf fishermen do catch is difficult to sell because of misperceptions about the food safety. Meanwhile, BP saw its stock price plummet over the summer, as well as take a near 30 billion dollar hit, between cleanup costs and pledged compensation funds. Its involvement and handling of the disaster has also raised questions about its decisions and practices regarding worker and environmental safety.

Although a great price has been and continues to be paid for this mess, we can only hope that BP keeps its promise to make the people of the gulf whole and learns its lessons about safety and puts the good of the environment ahead of that of its shareholders.

Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39256717/ns/us_news-environment/

9 Years Later - Unity and Division over 9/11

On the nine year anniversary of the September 11^th attacks, the nation’s divisive trend seemed to have hit a boiling point. The highly-politicized debate over the proposed “Ground Zero Mosque” spilled out into the rest of the country and the world. The pastor of a small church in Florida attracted global attention behind his proposed Qur’an burning event and counter protests in the Middle East. In stark contrast to the overwhelming sense of unity we felt as Americans nine years ago, opposing protests and demonstrations were planned near ground zero in New York. Fortunately, top political figures including the President, Vice President, the Mayor of New York, and others collectively issued a call for unity and tolerance. CNN covered some of the addresses and demonstrations here

Rev. Terry Jones, who spearheaded the “Burn the Qur’an Day” campaign, seemed hell-bent on moving forward with the event, despite intense political pressure and threats of violence against US troops. Initially claiming to be a message directed at extremists, it soon became apparent that it was really in response to the idea of the “Ground Zero Mosque”. Though I’m more inclined to believe that his arm was twisted in some way (by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, or other official), the pastor had a “change of heart and decided they would “definitely not burn the Quran. Not today, not ever.” And not a moment too soon – protests were expected to become violent, with numerous potential casualties for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan amid footage of the Qur’ans being burned.

Most importantly, as a symbol of unity between the left and the right, the first lady and former first lady came together to commemorate the victims of Flight 93 in Shanksville. They underscored the resilience of the American people to unify in the face of threats, terrorist or otherwise - citing the will of the passengers to sacrifice their lives to save thousands of others. And that's the ultimate lesson and reason we observe the tragedy on September 11^th; to remind ourselves of what makes us the same, instead of using it as a wedge to drive ourselves apart and hate and fear those that aren't like us.

The Government's Message and Gridlock Problem

It's hard not to notice the pundits and talking heads barking at each other about this year's congressional and gubernatorial elections. Heck, at a time when so many people are struggling and need help, just to stay above the poverty line(or at least tread through it,) our politicians are out, wasting money to score political points. Much of the argument going into the elections this November is about jobs and taxes. And on both fronts, both parties seem to be working against themselves.

Most of the Democrats insist on using another stimulus package to keep the recovery alive and help put people back to work, although the only officials actually defending the spending from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act last year are those from the White House. Incumbent Democrats worried about the backlash from what Republicans call a “wasteful” spending spree, don’t even seem to be putting up a fight over whether such action to curb the recession was justified, or even necessary. This lack of willingness to engage and justify their actions is one of the contributing factors to the confidence gap the Democratic Party suffers, only two years after the “Change” mandate that swept them into Congress in 2008. For more on the confidence gap, Joseph Palermo has a great article on The Huffington Post  here

On the other hand, Republicans wrecked the US and World economy, more than doubled the national debt, shrunk the nation’s safety net for the middle class, but want another shot at writing laws. One week, they embark on impassioned rants of populism and how the Liberals and Progressive Democrats are spending the nation into oblivion. The next, they’re promoting the preservation of the Bush Era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and Corporations, which by the way, makes up the majority of the nation’s debt over the next 5-10 years.  This comes after unified obstruction of jobless benefits and aid money for small businesses in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

As unpopular as many incumbent Democrats are with their perceived spinelessness in the face of opposition, the Republicans are even less popular because of their mishandling of the government. And strangely enough, people seem to be willing to go give the Republicans another chance this fall – or at the very least, give them more leverage over Congress. I wonder if those that are disappointed that the President and Congress didn’t get enough done will feel better when virtually every initiative gets obstructed over the next two years.