Life of the Closed Mind

Anna Quindlen is a journalist and an author, starting her career as a reporter for the New York Post in 1974 and moving to the New York Times in 1977. She left journalism to pursue writing full-time and has written four novels and two children’s books.

            The general argument made by Anna Quindlen in her work Life of the Closed Mind is that since September 11, we have become more like the terrorists. More specifically, Quindlen suggests that the way zealots think about the world is polar, black and white. She writes, “In the years since the class of 2005 entered college, America has become a country that sets its young people the terrible example of closed minds. The terrorists wanted to kill infidels. We only aim to silence them.” (pg. 67) In this passage, Quindlen is suggesting that since September 11, we have become just as close minded as the terrorists are. In conclusion, it is Quindlen’s belief that we are more close minded than we were before September 11.

            In my view, Quindlen is right because since 9/11 we have become judgmental of the Arabic race as a whole. We haven’t taken time to consider that the entire race isn’t the same as a group of terrorists. We have now implemented safety precautions that were not in place before then. For example, trying to get through security at the airports takes about an hour to an hour and a half because we are so worried about terrorists. Not to mention the fact that we screen only the minorities. Although Quindlen might object that we need the safety precautions in case we undergo another attack, I maintain that we need to make the screening fair and not stereotype a race as a whole. Therefore, I conclude that we have become more close minded since September 11.

Argumentation in a Culture of Discord

Frank L. Cioffi is the author of The Imaginative Argument: A Practical Manifesto for Writers and he is also an assistant professor of writing and director of the writing program at Scripps College.

            The general argument made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argumentation in a Culture of Discord is that the media does not provide a forum for actual debate. More specifically, Cioffi suggests that the media either gives us two choices of “right” or “wrong”. He writes, “This failure to provide a forum for argumentative discourse has steadily eroded students’ understanding of ‘argument’ as a concept.” (pg.63) In this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that the way the media handles issues has led our view as students astray in our ability to recognize arguments. In conclusion, it is Cioffi’s belief that the way the media portrays issues has affected the way we, as students, see arguments.

            In my view, Cioffi is right because I believe as well that when an issue is brought up through the media, there are only two sides broadcasted leaving only two sides for argumentation. For example, the choice to be for abortion or against it is portrayed as either being pro-choice or not. There is no room for other opinions, or so it seems.  Although Cioffi might object that arguments require at least two people, I maintain that there are more than just two sides to one issue. Therefore, I conclude that the media has indeed skewed our vision of argumentation.

           

           

All About Me

        I am a seventeen year old girl who loves hanging out with her friends. When I'm with

my friends, I like to go on drives with them, go roller blading, rock climb, hike, and just sit

around and talk. I also like reading books. It doesn't matter what kind of book, if I think it's

interesting I'll read it. I like driving around looking for places with a good view of the city

lights at night. I also like driving around to find somewhere I've never been before. I love the

summer and warm weather. I love swimming and tanning.

        As we went around the classroom telling all about ourselves, I found out new pieces of

information about my classmates. I had no idea that Jillian is Hawaiian. I also didn't know

that Darol makes $10.25 as a dental assistant. Sara Jullian used to be a dancer or still is a

dancer but I didn't know that at all. It was interesting to find out that Cameron has been to

Ireland. I am jealous. I want to go to Ireland really bad. Last, I found out that Brittaney has

ridden an elephant. How cool is that?

Why Engage in Political Thinking?

Page 15. The author is Glenn Tinder, who is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and the University of Massachusetts. He has books titled The Political Meaning of Christianity, Tolerance and Community, and Political Thinking: The Perennial Question.

The general point made by Glenn Tinder in his work Why Engage in Political Thinking? is that thinking is indeed hard work. More specifically, Tinder suggests that thoughts are fragile and intangible and can evaporate at the slightest distraction. And often you find yourself daydreaming when you are trying to think hard about something. He writes, “However, one who enters fully into the process of questioning set forth in the following chapters will discover that the difficulties of thinking are far more subtle and exasperating than those of mere hard work.” (pg. 15) In this passage, Tinder is suggesting that there are indeed difficulties involved in thinking that are not as obvious as physical work. In conclusion, it is Tinder’s belief that you must engage in political thinking because thinking is hard work and we need to do it on our own.

In my view, Tinder is right because to truly think through something you think is an issue takes a lot of thought and concentration. For example, if I wanted to solve world hunger, I would have to think of everything that goes into the world being hungry, all of the factors, who the stakeholders of the problem are, what resources we have available to fix the problem, and the history of the problem. I would probably end up daydreaming about something that I wanted to think of instead of world hunger. Although Tinder might object that one wouldn’t have to think of a problem so large, I maintain that even the smallest of problems are sometimes hard to work through. Therefore, I conclude that serious thinking can be very hard and that makes people not want to engage in political thinking.

A Method for Reading, Writing, and Thinking Critically

              The general argument made by Kathleen McCormick in her work A Method for Reading, Writing, and Thinking Critically is that we, as a country, do not know how to analyze a conflict much farther than right and wrong or winner versus loser. More specifically, McCormick suggests that there are two ways to analyze a piece of work to develop an evaluation in our own perspectives. She writes, “Historical analysis asks you to relate the values, practices, or beliefs of a text you are reading to those of a different time period from that in which the text was produced. Cultural analysis asks you to relate the values, practices, or beliefs of a text you are reading to other, often different or seemingly unrelated ideas, beliefs, or practices from the same time period in which the text was produced.” (pg.21) In this passage, McCormick is suggesting that historical analysis and cultural analysis are the two ways to make an evaluation of an argument based on your own perspective. In conclusion, it is McCormick’s belief that we should analyze text with historical and cultural analysis.

            In my view, McCormick is right because I agree that we as a country we only think that there are two sides to an issue. For example, you can either like scrambled eggs or over easy eggs without considering any other option. However, I think that McCormick is wrong saying that there are only two criteria to base an evaluation off of. Although McCormick might object that those are the two broadest areas of analysis, I maintain that there are a lot more things to consider when evaluating a text to form an opinion. Therefore, I conclude that we as a country need to examine all aspects of the problem but there are more ways to analyze a problem.