Don't Hate On Palin

While looking through some editorials on the Chicago Tribune website, I came across an article,written by Mary Schmich, that grasped my attention with the headline "Tracing Source of Women's Hate for Palin." The first question I ask is, how can you say you "hate" someone when you have only seen them on T.V. and heard about them on the radio? Schmich goes on to say "the hatred many profess for Palin is rooted in the feeling that she has ascended to power she hasn't earned". This leads to Schmich's main claim: Palin is not ready to be vice president. This article begins by explaining that Schmich is confronted by many women saying that they hate Palin and then Schmich receives "mystified" looks when she says "I don't". Even though Schmich doesn't hate Palin, she critiques her political views and "credentials for this job." Later, Schmich goes on to infer that the one to hate is Mccain, because he picked an unqualified running mate. Although critizing Palin, Schmich says "there's a lot to admire."

While looking at the article, I came across a biography for Schmich which said she went Stanford and Harvard to study Journalism. Also, she has been with the Tribune since 1985. Sounds like a credible source to me. I would have to say that going to Stanford and Harvard might give you some ethos points, and did I forget that shes been doing this for 23 years? Her writing shows that she went to two of the top schools in the country. She uses logos by stating the political beliefs of Palin and reminding the reader of how she "stumble[d]" through the interview with Katie Couric. Not only does Schmich clearly articulate the facts about Palin, but she makes the reader feel like she cares about her. Schmich says, "it hurt to watch her fumble through her interview," which shows that she is using pathos to urge the reader sympathize for Palin. Schmich also says, "the real bad guys were the folks who seduced her for their political gain into thinking she was ready." The writer obviously believes Palin is not ready, but more importantly says that McCain "seduced" her into think she could take on the task of being the vice president. I was shocked to see the word "seduced" since it has such a negative connotation, and I think Schmich specifically placed that word in there to have the reader feel badly for Palin.

This article was extremely well written and changed my views about Palin. I agree with Schmich and felt like she used logos, ethos, and pathos to make her editorial very powerful. Also, I felt like I was in conversation with the author, which allowed me to really understand and believe what the article was trying to convey. This was a fantastic article and I enjoyed analyzing every word of it.

It Is All Your Fault!!

When I think of Puritans, I think of "the city on the hill" and the model for the new world. Sounds like a perfect community, right? Well. not really. The Puritans dreamed of having a "model" community for their folk back home, but who would have dreamed of a perilous time full of suspicion? Since the community was not as perfect as they dreamed it would be, they began to blame it on "unnatural things"(Miller 9). In Arthur Miller's, The Crucible, Parris' daughter Betty has become ill and will not awaken. The Puritans begin to think "it is surly a stroke of hell"(12). They begin to use the devil as a scapegoat and are suspicious that witchcraft has caused there children to be ill. Why does there always need to be some one to blame?
Lately, the economy has been, in my terms, down in the dumps. One of the USA's largest insurance companies, AIG, was just bailed out by the government. Lehman Brothers, a large investment banking company, files for bankruptcy. The economy is in a perilous time. From watching the television, it seems like each annalist has someone to blame, even the presidential candidates. McCain claims that"[Obama] is part of the problem in Washington". This boggles my mind. I do not understand why people always have to blame someone. Have people ever considered trying to work together and fix the problem, rather than blaming people ? It seems to me that during rough, perilous times, we want to find a quick answer to why the hardship has happened, so we find a scapegoat. Human nature is so fascinating because it never changes; it happened in 1692 and it happens in 2008.

"Please stand for our National Anthem!"

On a dark and rainy Friday night, all my teammates, wearing our green uniforms, toed the sideline and put our helmets in our right hands to listen to the Star Spangled Banner. At the south end of the field flew the flag of the United States of America. Usually, I am so nervous for a sports event that I do not even listen to the words of our national anthem, but this gloomy Friday night was different. I stared deeply at the red, white and blue flag and was startled when I heard, "Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight".
Our flag, one that represents freedom, survived the "perilous fight" at Fort McHenry during the Battle of 1812. Along with the American flag, the American people survived the "perilous fight" because they all came together and defended for our countries freedom. This reminds me of September 11, 2001; when America came together and overcame the devastating attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. There seems to be a similar trend of when our country is in a perilous time, we Americans join hands to support our country. We seem to forget about ouselves and try to help our country and those in need. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and surrounding cities, the American people responded by setting up fundraisers to help those who had been affected by the storm. This brings me to the question: Why do Americans only come together when it is a perilous time?
We Americans should be just as close during a prosperous time as we in a perilous time. Why do we need tragedy to bring us together? America is one big family and we need to be there during the good and the bad times.

I Am a Blogger

I have just signed up and now I am ready to blog.