Blog Questions

1.
Ever since my younger brother, Matt, received his license, we have constantly bickered over who gets the car and when. I had my license for over two years before he got his, and it was a difficult to adapt to not being able to take the car whenever I pleased. We each think that we have more of a right than the other person to use the car. The major argument is age. I say that I'm older and I should have first choice on when I need it, so long as it doesn't interfere with his work schedule; and Matt says that I've had plenty of time to use the car since he got his license after me. Although we've been legal drivers at the same time for more than two years, we still continue to argue. I wish it were as simple as clarifying our references; however, we place a higher value on our own evidence and thus, the arguing continues. Our level of conflict is 3. We often use "statistics", as in who uses more gas, or generally puts on more miles, to try and convince our mediator (our mother) who deserves the car. We also pull from past experiences, generally negative ones, such as who has a speeding ticket, or who gets more parking tickets (we live right outside Chicago-and parking is almost as bad as Bloomington!) Our arguments will probably never stop unless we both realize how to share and make sacrifices.

2.
The issues of students' rights at Sproul Hall is compared to the issue of civil rights in Mississippi. I believe this analogy made by Savio is closely related to the allusion of Kafka. The rights for both parties are fighting for are the similar and the authorities "dealing" with each situation act similarly as well. Savio describes the universities bureaucracy as "unresponsive" and "depersonalized." This shows that the bureaucracy is suppressing the students' rights through ignoring them. Similarly, the autocrats in power in Mississippi also suppress the powerless majority. These ideas are Kafkaesque in the sense that the bureaucrats have intentionally distorted reality to justify their actions. I think the analogy worked well because it compared a small scale legal rights issue to a larger, more well-known one. I think it would be impossible for the university's administration not to recognize the lack of student rights after their oppression has been compared to that of civil rights. Savio's article would influence me to not only listen to the students, but also make policy changes on behalf of the students' rights. These changes would be made not only because they would be the just thing to do, but also because the university would have to deal with public humiliation for suppressing their students' opinions and legal rights.

3.
Obama uses history to argue for his character because it creates a clearer relationship between his argument and his background. He explains where he comes from and his personal background and how he has worked for his American dream. Jeremiah Wright is Obama's former Reverend who helped Barack grow into the person and the American he is today, despite Wright's few Anti-American slams. By giving this historical background of their relationship, Obama is creating an ethos appeal, not only for himself, but also for the Reverend. This helps the reader better connect with why this man was Obama's Reverend and how much of a positive impact Wright has had on Obama's character. I think that Wells-Barnett and Savio would have furthered the effectiveness of their arguments by constructing strong ethos appeals like Obama had. Their arguments would be questioned less since the audience would have less reason to doubt the authors' credibility or knowledge on their topics.