Month: April 2012

Here is an article from Fox News that exemplifies the logical fallacy of ad hominem. This article questions Obama’s ability to deal with national security issues and establish good relations with foreign states. I believe that the author is practicing ad hominem, meaning that the article is attacking the person rather than the argument or topic at hand. The author does try to address Obama’s policies and his achievements in office to assess the administration’s impact on American progress. However, he mentions far too much of Obama’s persona to avoid a logical fallacy. Calling Obama a “mild-mannered suit” and his policies “Stakhanovite” effort is simply a way of mud-slinging in politics – only because Obama happens to be a Democrat and this author is clearly a conservative American.

Here is an article about Easter that exemplifies rhetorical fallacy. It is short, but definitely not to the point. What is the point of this article? Is it praising the celebration of Easter? Is it condemning the celebration? Is it trying to imply that religious celebration is bad or misunderstood? It is very hard to tell. Also, the article contains some incorrect facts, like referring to Jesus being nailed onto a tree. Lastly, the author is making a large generalization by saying that “most people” don’t understand the point of Easter, while leaving the reader hanging about what exactly the point is.

I picked Naryan’s post on “Defining Democracy” as a memorable article from this term. Naryan provides a comprehensive outline of his definition of democracy while informing the readers about the background of it. He refers to how the concept of democracy came about, and to relevant historical sources such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Gettysburg Address. Not only is he basing his argument of what democracy should be on his personal opinions, but also he draws in contextual information. I also like the way he opens and closes the article: the hook at the beginning is enough to tell the reader what the post will be about, and to get the reader pondering. His last remarks on what democracy means to each individual leaves the reader to continue in the thought process of defining democracy. I think this is a key aspect of any writing: to make the reader stay engaged in the topic even after the article as finished. Overall, I like the smooth transition of the post and think Naryan did a good job achieving the goals of this mini-assignment: to define democracy in our own terms and support our view.

I picked this article below from my archives as my best of the term. I liked this particular article because I researched the topic thoroughly before writing about it, and incorporated some of my historical knowledge into the article. My blogger voice is reflected throughout the piece and I clearly show my stance on the issue – while addressing the other side. It was based on an interesting topic based on the depth of the comments I received.

Space Issues

Obama recently agreed with the European Union proclamation calling for cooperative work in space. The latest code of conduct from the European Union aims at preventing the outer space from becoming an area of conflict. Obama’s decision to follow this code means that the US must avoid militarization of space.

In the TIME article, it is shown that two prominent political figures – John Bolton and John Yoo – are heavily opposed to Obama’s decision. They basically said that this is an act of concession, which will give other countries, like China, to pose a threat to the US in space. I just had to stop reading the article for a minute and think, are these men thinking right?

We may be witnessing a rapid growth of power in China but we are no longer living in the Cold War era. While I understand that it can have a lot to do with prestige and subsequent power that may follow (or vice versa), I don’t think that fighting for territory and satellites in space is a modernized way of doing politics.

Back in the postbellum years, the USSR and the USA were battling for World political influence. It was a time of paranoia and uncertainty – what with the threats of nuclear weapons from the USSR and its explicit desire to conquer territories.

Is that the case now? Not quite so. China may have leaped into economic productivity, but it still would not dare to follow any footsteps of the USSR. There is a difference between then and now: then, realpolitik was at one of its peaks; now, in 2012, we don’t necessarily have the tension and anxiety that political actors experienced. The world has come to an agreement on many things, and this code of conduct may be another one. Bolton and Yoo, this is the 21st century, not 1957.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in South Africa has asked the National Prosecuting Agency to revisit the 2009 decision to suspend criminal charges against President Jacob Zuma. There has been a two-sided debate on this issue: the African National Congress (ANC) is rather unhappy with the SCA because this event exemplifies how easily democracy can be undermined. On the other hand, the Democratic Alliance (DA), who was the first appellant of this case, views this as an example of overcoming political pressure to reach transparency in the system.

There can be two opposing ways to look at this. I can see how this can easily be seen as promoting democracy in South Africa. Instead of passively accepting court decisions, the DA has stood up and voiced its concerns on how legitimate the court decision was. The SCA’s acceptance to further investigate the case shows how the court is willing to withstand political pressure and revisit a case at request.

However, I can also view this as a reflection of the typical faulty character of democracy. Democratic systems we have today tend to be filled with bureaucracy and red tape, and the plurality of ideas and voices tend to slow the democratic process down. With the return to this court case, the South African courts will have to spend hours to assess the decision that had previously been made – this could just be an annoying deviation from allowing the courts to continue on with their agenda and decision-making. How much of the South African population supports this DA request? Is there even a consensus? The DA may seem like the ‘good guy’ compared to the ANC, but we have to find out how the DA works and if the people support it.

Nonetheless, I think that the DA is trying its best to have the interests of the South African people at its heart. It is emphasizing that nobody is above the law – even high-powered politicians, such as Zuma. The DA is reminding us that democracy gives us the means to question and address anything that might seem unjust, and, by doing this, it is strengthening the democratic ideals and values in South Africa.