Question One:
My YOUNGER sister and I participate in a traditional argument over who gets to drive our ten year old Ford Taurus when we come back from our respective universities on winter, spring, and summer break. If we fail to negotiate like civilized people, we both end up stranded at home, if we can’t be bothered to pay $1.25 to ride the metro, usually throwing mean looks at one another. Thank god we usually manage to come to some sort of agreement. After all, we hold the same local values, or maybe we prize them so much they’ve become global values- that of socializing and going to the beach, or even just going for a drive down PCH at sunset. Our level of conflict is certainly then the first level, a conflicting sense of certain statements. When I argue my age would allow me driving privileges, she rebuts that she can’t help that she was born two years after me. When I say that the only reason Sarah would ever succeed in attaining the car and the freedom that comes with it IS her age and THAT is unfair- of course she is the baby of the family and of course completely doted on by my parents, my bothers, and let’s face it- even I cannot always say no to my little sister, stubborn and viciously argumentative as she is. Nevertheless, we realize that sharing a car and giving each other a lift now and again is better than no car at all.



Question Two:
The allusion to Brave New World in Savio’s speech functions in a manner that highlights the fact that citizens cannot participate in a democratic society if the bureaucracy managing the society is “depersonalized [and] unresponsive”. Allowing free speech requires that someone is there is listen, and not only that, to respond as well. Power in the hands of a few threatens the citizen’s right to speak out. Saying that “impersonal bureaucracy is the efficient enemy in a ‘brave New World’” reaffirms the silent, stoic power of a government that is unfettered by the speech of its people. In order to change to take place, Savio explains, higher government officials must respond to the demands, questions, comments, concerns, etc. of the people. That is essentially what Savio is getting at with his allusion to Brave New World.


Questions Three:
In formulating his response around the stasis of cause, Obama is able to assert fact about his history with Wright in a way that explains the reasons he has been associated with the Rev. This allows Obama the opportunity to respond honestly and in a manner that answer various questions his audience might have about their relationship. He also redirects the accusations away from his character in a way- by giving a brief history that includes solid, factual explanations, he is providing claims that are irrefutable (as long as they are honest, certain FACT cannot be rebutted). His both clears his character of any malice as well as explains some of his political and social history, something that would be of interest to both his audience and his rivals.