Hidden opinion within an argument

It takes a good writer to persuade a reader without them even realizing it. I read an editorial in the Chicago Tribune referring to the political debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. The article was titled Smooth sailing for Obama until the debate arrived in Iran. The piece was written by John Kass. The title alone makes the reader believe that this writer is a Mccain fan. Kass begins the article by stating that Obama may have been more collected, but was left completely dumbfounded when the topic of Iran came up. Even if you didn't think Kass sided with McCain at the beginning of the article, the reader could atleast think Kass was neutral. He states that he doesn't believe one candidate won over the other.
As you really read the article, you can tell that it is indeed the other way around. Kass refers to Obama as "strong," "cool," and "so full of grace." He attacks the argument head on by making the reader sympathize with Obama. He takes a pathos approach by saying that Obama is able to get nervous during a section of the debate. You almost feel bad for Obama that he cracked under the pressure. You almost feel as if Mccain bullied Obama, and sadly brought him down. There is then the ethos approach to it all. Obama had a great attitude during the entire program, and opposed McCain in an extremely civil manner. Kass goes on to say that Obama was able to touch people whereas McCain came out rather "flat." Obama seemed to act more like a gentleman throughout the debate, and that statement alone can help the reader stray to the writers opinion. Then there is the logos idea. Kass expresses McCain's harsh tone by using direct quotes. He then goes into explain Obama's debating tactics and proves how they play out and work.
I think Kass wrote a very intelligent editorial argument. I don't think the writer ever falls short of anything or misses something that leaves the reader asking questions. He is able to fill the page with a detailed analysis of a debate between presidential candidates. The fact that he isn't so blatantly opinionated just makes the reader believe him even more.

Witchcraft not dead yet? Finding comfort in faith

It seems as if the term witchcraft is still in affect even hundreds of years after the tragedy of the Salem Witch Trials. I came across an article online that really grabbed my attention. The article was referring to Sarah Palin, the current Republican VP candidate, and acts she has decided to take to free herself from witchcraft. In 2005, Sarah Palin, decided to be blessed by her church to help her stray from the dangers of witchcraft. This was around the time she was deciding to take a higher role in the government. Thomas Munthee, a Kenyan Penetcostal Bishop, led the blessing in Palin's church in Alaska (the blessing ceremony has become a popular video on youtube). In Africa witchcraft is prevalent, and not as rare compared to the United States. He wanted to free her from the devil, and help her lead the world in the right direction. He uses the words and phrases "enemies" and "in the name of Jesus." This vocabulary leads me back to the Crucible and how this article relates to the playwrite. So many years have passed, yet people still fear the same things. In perilous times, people will look towards their faith to help them rise above the chaos. As Sarah Palin is venturing into unknown territory, she wants to make sure she is safe. Religion can offer a sense of security and comfort. I have to think that is why people follow it so strongly. Palin's church has been known to partake in some unusual rituals, but also very spiritual acts. They aren't meant to cause harm just create a harmony for life.

Wearing your Vote

This weekend I came across a set of articles in the Chicago Tribune that really caught my eye. The articles all fell under the idea of showing your allegiance towards the election through apparel. One piece of writing was titled Sometimes voters really step into it, and it explained how Americans can now buy political shoes from the very popular shoe brand TOMS. The company makes shoes that not only emphasize the need to vote, but can also highlight which party you support. Another interesting characteristic about these shoes is that they can incorporate half Republican and half Democratic symbols for those who aren't sure which party they favor, but understand the importance of casting their own votes. TOMS is not only a supporter here in the United States, but also helps with worldwide issues. For every pair of shoes bought, TOMS will donate a pair to a child or adult in need all over the world.
Other articles included Put your neck on the line for your party, and Brace yourself patriotically for the coming election. Both of these articles again highlighted the different ways to support your party in the upcoming election. Both focus on materials sold in the area. One article was emphasizing neck ties that showcase who you are voting for, and the other mentioned suspenders that didn't choose to portray one party, but instead plays up the campaign in general.
When I finished reading these articles, I couldn't help but contemplate over the actual definintion of an election. Is an election something that through words and ideas help a president get elected or is it through press, media, and apparel that he or she is chosen? I also couldn't help but wonder, as our economy is struggling and people lessen their load on consuming, why do they still buy gear simply for the elections? Is the apparel worth the forty of fifty bucks you need to spend? Voting is free, but campaigning is really costing some serious cash.

How do you label yourself? The United States split between Republicans and Democrats

The time has arrived, and a new man will soon be living in the White House. As our country becomes completely engrossed in the presidential elections, a split is quickly formed between parties. With this division comes the question; are you a Democrat or Republican? It seems as if you have to choose a side, and decide how you are going to define yourself as a voter. Sometimes this label may cast a bias over who would make a good president.
John Mccain and Barack Obama may become great leaders or unsuccessful front men, but it may not be based on the party they identify with. I think a good president needs strength, leadership, and determination. I have faith that people will choose a president who they see fit, and who's ideas they agree with. People should not to let the label of party determine their vote. I hope that people become less fixed, and our able to step out of their own prejudice. This way they can vote who they truly believe is a better candidate, and not just pick the man who represents the party they are registered under.
As our country is desperately searching for peace, I hope we are able to find it and have it remain after these elections are over.