Will Wrigley Field lose their booze?

In a recent editorial that I read in the Chicago Tribune, Troy Smith refers to the possible ban on drinking at Wrigley Field. The ban would be during the game for about an hour. He attempts to connect with the reader on a logical (logos) and personal (pathos) level, but I believe he does not clearly emphasise a thesis in his piece. He does, however, clarify his point in the last sentence of the article, saying to "...Let the bars serve all the alcohol they want... As long as the laws are enforced and people are arrested when they break the law [for public intoxication], there won't be any problem" (Smith 34). He does give legitimate examples that any person who has been to a sports game can relate to, and with this connects with people with related personal experiences. Even so, his whole argument seems to be examples of drunken conduct, and with this, he seems to contradict himself when he gives these specific examples of disgusting and crude things being done by intoxicated fans at games. Although at the end he does make the point that he wants them to be arrested, it appears by all of his other statements that he would have approved of the hour band on drinking, but that seems to be false as I read on. He is trying to appeal to non-heavy drinkers who share his views in not wanting all the drunken displays, but still is apposed to the ban with his one ultimatum for police. But how can police catch every single drunk person displaying disorderly conduct? He makes the point that it is bad and drunk people should be arrested when in public, but his opinion on the ban is never clearly stated, and is contradictory throughout. I suppose you could assume that he disagrees with it because of his quote on letting bars serve all the alcohol they want, but then there is still all the negativity towards this conduct in public. Overall his point is not very clear, but he does make strong points about the negative effects of people being drunk in public, and with that relates to the readers that sympathize with him. While the article didn't necesarily get his specific views on the subject across, he did make the point of the problems of drunk people in public.

Author: Troy Smith of Buffalo Grove

Publisher: Tony W. Hunter

Only Puritans Aiming for the Elite?

The puritans insisted that their fate was predetermined but still acted as though they needed to prove something, just in case, hinting that maybe they didn't believe their preaches as much as they led us to believe. While thinking this, it came to my attention that that puritans were not the only ones who aimed for the elite. With the presidential elections right around the corner, it appears that everyone is trying to act with stricter self set guidelines. Both of the presidential candidates and all of their teams, vice presidents, etc., need to always be aware of everything they say and do. As with the puritans, everything they do and say is being judged with the harshest of criticism, and they would probably prefer the process if it had less critique and stress. But they can't. Because running to be the leader of our country turns into a lifestyle, just like the puritans chose their lifestyle.

When running for president, everything you do is under a microscope, and the puritans had the same. For Obama and McCain, a mistake or ill-spoken word is viewed by the pres and the whole country, and for puritans, their whole community is watching. Apologies to the whole communities have been used for the puritans, and they are not even trying to lead a country, they simply want to live their lives. McCain quotes Ronald Reagan in saying that we must be a city on a hill, implying that we all must act as though we are the elite, not just the puritans and presidential candidates. If everyone aimed for the elite and acted like the puritans, we would probably have a world with no, or close to no, sin. But what would be left?

Sept 11, 2001 and authority in fear

Today, September 11, 7 years ago, the United States experienced the tragic event of a terrorist attack on the twin towers. And this terrible event did demonstrate one thing, that the authority of a country can be dramatically altered by certain events. Although George W. Bush's rating increased dramatically after the events of 9/11 , and have dramatically dropped since, becoming about 30%. It's interesting to compare his ratings to different events in history such as 0/11 and the Iraq war where his ratings increased and decreased dramatically. In times of trouble and fear, a country's leader can go from hero to scapegoat in a matter of weeks, and this can be clearly demonstrated.

In Logan and Lawler's blogging "experiment" today in class, the issue was discussed of power. What happened to the unity of the class when in fear? Some united and identified together, defending their fellow classmates, their community, and others tried to seperate the "guilty" from the "innocent." It's hard not to wonder how much this had to do with the fear placed over us that we could be in trouble, and if not us individually, the class as a whole.