Sunday, January 23, 2005

Sarah Ryley's Argument: An Objective Analysis

I know Joe doesn't like us to comment on the South End's activities too much, but I could not contain myself after reading an article by Sarah Ryley, entitled Inaugural speech signals dark times for America, the world. I analysed thearguments of Ms. Ryley and have come up with this completely objective analysis. Enjoy.

Analysis 1

Ms. Ryley claims that President Bush used the word "mandate" to justify his policies, an "air of infalliability" in his administration, and clearly indicate that President Bush feels his mission is dictated by God. Ms. Ryley failed to cite where exactly President Bush said "mandate" because that would provide the astute reader with some context and would more then likely dissolve Ms. Ryley's argument.

Analysis 2

Sarah Ryley claims that governments that consider themselves to be ordained by God "have always been marked by a dark shadow over history". She gives two examples: Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, neither of these men are "governments". Adolf Hitler ran the government of Germany and his government was called the Nazi party". If Ms. Ryley paid more attention in History 1300, she'd know that Hitler actually reduced and eliminated religious education in German schools. Further, if Ms. Ryley had read Hitler's Mein Kampf, she'd know Hitler was motivated not by God, but an Aryan myth system of his own invention. Osama Bin Laden has never even ran any government, and is a lunatic terrorist that lives in a cave. Furthermore, Ms. Ryley fails to explain how these men serve as relevant analogies to President Bush's style of governance or his usage of the word "mandate". Ms. Ryley also fails to consider that the Founding Fathers of the United States make numerous references to God in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers were a dark shadow over history?

Analysis 3

Ms. Ryley used her keen observation skills to remind us that President Bush said "freedom"27 times and "liberty" 15 times. Furthermore, Ms. Ryley claims that President Bush seems to imply that America is immortal and the earthly manifestation of God's will. Well, if Ms. Ryley believes that liberty and freedom are good, and further that God is good, then she must, by logic, believe that freedom and liberty would be willed by God. Further, President Bush's conviction that freedom and liberty are immortal ideals does not imply that American is immortal.

Analysis 4

Ms. Ryley claims thatU.S. forces will be "sweeping over the Third World". Why should we believe that? U.S. forces didn't sweep over the Third World in President Bush's first administration. Why would he do so now? Is Ms. Ryley implying that the only way to spread liberty and freedom is by use of force? There is no reason to believe that.

Analysis 5

Here is an extensive quote from Ms. Ryley:

Bush’s optimism refuses to acknowledge the harsh existence that many of us are experiencing at home — one of stagnant wages, decreased job opportunities and diminishing funds for education, while inflation steadily climbs and healthcare becomes as unaffordable to the employers as it is to individuals. Those of us who aren’t cushioned by wealth know that life is only going to get harder as the new “ownership society” will be offered no relief from the more impermeable federal government.

Why should I believe any of these claims? The simple fact is Ms. Ryley provided no evidence for any of these claims and worst of all seems to be implying that President Bush has no plan to address any of these issues.

Analysis 6

Again I quote extensively from Ms. Ryley's article:

And while Bush tells us that we “must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time,” the Republican Party’s biggest agenda is to obliterate all rights of non-heterosexuals, silencing them by shame, resignation and the desire to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

First, a person's belief that same-sex couples ought not have legal marriage does not constitute a sufficient nor even necessary condition for being a racist. The reason being that when a person is racist, he has an irrational hatred for a person based on some perceived illusory quality. Everyone knows that the gradients of melanin in one's skin does not affect the intelligence of that person. Also, how does Ms. Ryley justify the assertion that the Republican Party is attempting to deny "all rights" to "non-heterosexual" (whatever that is, seeing as how a rock constitutes a non-heterosexual)? How has the Republican party shamed homosexuals? By calling them big dumb gay-heads? That is a ridiculous assertion on Ms. Ryley's part. Furthermore, not everyone shares the same sexual rights. Pedophiles and rapists are not permitted to explore there sexuality (thank God). I challenge any liberal to offer a real and tenable definition of "equality" since they seem to use it so much, they obviously must know what it means.

Analysis 7

Lastly, Ms. Ryley claims that God is "a universal term that describes what is outwardly and inwardly beautiful" ? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. A daisy is a pretty flower, but it certainly is not God. I just...don't even know how to approach this absurdity.

Analysis Complete:

Ms. Ryley needs to take a course in critical thinking because something is very wrong with her claims and their justification.

1 comment:

Agent 008X said...

Is this going in the paper? I hope so.
I personally think the wayne review should lauch an all out war on the SouthEnd to grab attention while we continue to improve the paper. They cant get any worse in their quality of writing and content, and The Wayne Review should be able to easily take on TSE.

By the way, are the blue links hard to read or is it just my eyes?