What ever happened to the good old sumo wrestling days? Two big Japanese men in oversized underwear pushing eachother until one falls out of the ring. It used to be a “survival for the fittest” type of scenario, but recently has appeared to be everything but pure competition. Norimitsu Onishi wrote an article in the New York Times called “Japan Wrings Its Hands Over Sumo’s Latest Woes” which speaks of recent unfortunate occurrences in the sport of sumo wrestling. Onishi writes about a grand champion named Asashoryu and his actions on and off the wrestling ring. It is said that Asashoryu had faked an injury to get out of sumo wrestling in order to play soccer in his home country of Mongolia. It is also stated that Asashoryu and another grand champion had fixed matches. Although sumo wrestling is a sport founded by Japan and is a true tradition in the country, the top wrestlers are actually foreigners from Mongolia. Japan is now thinking of changing the rules of sumo wrestling, which had been set in stone many generations ago. Some believe that foreigners should not be allowed to take part in the country’s sport of sumo wrestling. If Japan were to exclusively have Japanese wrestlers, how would that change the sport? I’m sure japanese wrestlers have the same capability of performing such wrongful actions as do foreigners. If Japan changes the rules of sumo wrestling, they would not only be altering the historical sport, but also the entire tradition of the Japanese culture. Could there be other possible solutions to this dilemma? Give Japan some advice.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times wrote an article entitled “Nuclear-Armed Iran Risks ‘World War III,’ Bush Says” speaking of the nuclear weapon contents which Iran possesses. The article documents that Bush had said that there was a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. It was said that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told people that if they are interested in avoiding World War III, then they should be interested in preventing Israel from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. Bush says he will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, but what is he to do about it? Is he going to push further against Iran and suppress them so they give into the United States? Bush made the statement “The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, ‘This isn’t worth it,’ and to me it’s worth the effort to keep pressure on this government.” What will be the outcome of Bush’s intention of keeping pressure on the Iranian government? Bush continues to state “My intent is to continue to rally the world, to send a focused signal to the Iranian governement that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point somebody else shows up and says it’s not worth the isolation.” Are Bush’s actions logical? Bush may be exercising the power of the United States in a negative manner. It is quite possible that his plans may backfire on him and cause Iran to fight back against the U.S.
How could United States president George Bush just ignore Egypt right in front of their face? An article in the New York Times entitled “On Human Rights, U.S. Seems to Give Eguypt a Pass” states that Bush flew to Egypt and spoke to an Egyptian human rights advocate, Hisham Kassem, about spreading democracy to other countries. However, Bush seemed to have ignored the concept of Egypt gaining democracy. Looking forward to hearing Bush speak of Egypt, Kassem noticed he did not address the topic. What was the reason behind this? Could Bush have possibly forgotten to speak of his plans for Egypt? Does Bush even have plans for Egypt? The article states that Egypt, in its current state, is very beneficial to the United States administration. Maybe that could be the reason why Bush did not speak of his plans for Egypt. Maybe he does not have plans for them, but to keep them the way they currently are because they are doing no harm, but benefitting the United States. However, what could be possible outcomes of Bush’s actions? Will Egypt indeed continue to stay as a beneficiary to the United States? Or will Bush’s actions drive Egypt to gradually go against the United States’ actions? I really hope Bush has done the right thing.
The American military is seemingly not taking appropriate action when it comes to foriegn affairs. New York Times writer Sebnem Arsu wrote an article enititled “Iraq Moves to Deter Turkey From Cross-Border Raids” which speaks of such instances. The article states that The United States and Turkey are NATO allies, however, Turkey is taking an action which the United States opposes. The article also points out that Turkey’s actions will upset the Iraqi Kurds, the United States’ strongest allies in the war in Iraq. The article states that the reason behind Turkey’s actions is an increase in the number of killings of Turkish soldiers by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Would there be some other possible way that the Turkish military could handle the situation? In my opinion, there has to be a more logical explanation as to why Turkey is all of a sudden turning on the United States and going after the Iraqi Kurds. What would possible outcomes be from the situation? Would the United States continue to be allies with Turkey despite the fact that the U.S. is storngly against their decisions?
Often times people tend to argue from one point of view and disregard an opposing point of view. This type of illogical fallacy is categorized as special pleading. While reading through the New York Times today, i noticed many articles and editorials in which writers are expressing themselves on given topics through arguments which support their positions, but they ignore the fact that there are arguments which oppose their positions. One article which i believe emphasizes special pleading is an editorial written by Debra A. Ciamaccia from Pennsylvania. She writes “As a former Marine Corps captain, I vehemently disagree with the officer who says that our generals could not buck Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld because to do so would be throwing away the Constitution. It is an officer’s duty to disagree in private with civilian authority if he believes that an egregious mistake has been made.” As you can see, Debra is simply arguing her position using evidence, such as the fact that she had been in the Marine Corps, which supports her position, but at the same time she neglects the fact that there are opposing views to her opinion. I’m sorry to say, Debra, but you are very illogical. You just can’t completely ignore the fact that others are against you. You just can’t ramble on and on about how you are right in your argument just because you have served in the Marine Corps and have had experience in that field. Reality check Debra, others have opinions too.
It’s true that illegal immigrants are not supposed work in the U.S. or even be within its boundaries, but is it making the economy better by kicking them out? An article written by Steven Greenhouse on October 12, 2007 in the New York Times documents the arresting of 21 illegal immigrants at a butchering plant in North Carolina. The article states that since this arrest, more than 1,100 Hispanic workers wirkers have left the world’s largest butchering plant, leaving it struggling to find replacements, let alone training them and keeping them. Why can’t the U.S. aid them into gaining citizenship so they can specialize in important duties? I believe immigrants account for a major part of production in the United States. Cutting them and driving them out of the country may result in a shortage of goods and services. I think that in the long run, restricting immigrants will result in a huge economic shortage. The U.S. government had better start brainstorming on other ways to handle the situation or else they may hurt the economy instead of helping it.
Would pro-war citizens still be backing our involvement in Afghanistan if they knew what was going to happen? An article written by Thom Shanker on October 11, 2007 in the New York Times would definately have them thinking twice. His article “Marines Pushing For Leading Role In Afghanistan” states that the army’s goal is to efficiently use numbers of troops, despite objections. The redistributing of troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq may cause the troops in Iraq to have to stay in their location for more than a year. I think it is true that we may be using our troops effectively by performing this allocation, however, where does that leave those who have been stationed in Iraq for a long period of time prior? Could there be a better solution to the situation? Quantity is good, but when will the armed forces realize that quality is very important too? I believe they should rethink their situation thoroughly and come up with a more effective plan which will benefit everyone in the long run.
Why does the United States armed forces continue to create a bad image for themselves? Are they so powerful that they believe they can do whatever they want? On Wednesday, October 3, 2007 James Glanz and Alissa J. Rubin wrote an article in the New York Times about a shooting in Baghdad Square. The article states that a man by the name of Ahmed Haithem Ahmed did not know that a convoy containing Blackwater guards was approaching during his errand to pick up his father from work. The Blackwater guards opened fire on Ahmed’s vehicle probably assuming he had been an enemy. The guards killed both Ahmed and his mother. Were the Blackwater guards just trying to protect themselves, or did they just open fire on every middle eastern person in their sight. After the killing of Ahmed and his mother, the Blackwater guards then began opening fire on a group of cars. No wonder the United States is hated by so many countries because the armed forces keep using their power to oppress others. It seems as though the Blackwater guards have aided the war in Iraq, but aided it in the negative direction.
My frustration over our involvment in foreign affairs seems to keep getting worse and worse with each printed newspaper. Thom Shanker wrote an article in the New York Times on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 regarding statements made by U.S. Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno. The article documents that Odierno says the initial goal for the capital was for American forces to move to what is called “tactical overwatch,” in which security operations would be left up to Iraqis with Americans able to respond and assist “in a very short period of time.” Odierno says that that would take most of next year to achieve. Is there any way to possibly speed up the process? Think about the families of those who are stationed in Iraq. Don’t you think they are getting just a little restless over the fact that they haven’t seen their loved ones for such a long period of time? I believe that some of the actions that the United States take regarding foreign affairs are completely unnecessary. The general is only making a prediction of how long the process of taking over Baghdad may take. It may even take much longer for the U.S. to actually achieve their goal. I think the government should stop making guesses and start laying down strict plans and stick to them.
Thomas L. Friedman had written an article in the New York Time talking about today’s generation of college students. He labels them “Generation Q” due to their pursuing of their own idealism in various locations. Friedman is amazed by the Generation Q because he believes they are more optimistic than they should be. Well how optimistic should we be? I believe one can never be too optimistic. I view optimism as a state of mind which gives confidence to those pursuing their dreams and allows them to believe in themselves in order to overcome difficult impediments in their near and distant futures. Has Friedman made a correct generalization of today’s generation of college students? Or has he just simply stated his opinions of Generation Q as a result of his observations? You be the judge of that.
