Don't worry, your among friends here...(ones whose procrastinating habits starkly overshadow yours)
Doesn't help matters that I am an insomniac as well...
*Meh* Anyway now that I have taken a break from a 10 hour work day and oddly going on a Downton Abbey marathon tangent, I feel it's time to post my analysis of an editorial from the NY times about LIBOR.
What is LIBOR you ask? Click on it...Otherwise you can go ahead and read the actual article
Although this story is about 3 weeks old, I had not picked up on it until it was on the Daily Show/Colbert Report, and therefore, wasn't on the radar of an ignorant college student such as myself. Why did you guys have to take a two week break?!? Damn you Stewart!
Moving on, the article goes straight to giving a title that personally drew my attention. The piece in question is titled "A Week in the Life of Libor". The implication of giving a summary, while also giving opinion on a subject that is really only caught wildfire in the past week or so (personally I read it and went on a Beatles tangent in my head for a good five minutes). The author had a great way to give the audience a rhetorical "hook", by using an appeal to ethos in the introduction paragraph while also establishing his tone and stance.
He also uses diction for an appeal to pathos, while also giving a quick summary and linking like-minded articles for support (love that) in the second paragraph, like "Meanwhile, the furor over how banks fiddled with the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, for their own advantage is now in the buck-passing phase, as bankers and regulators alike attempt to minimize their role." This is not the only use of his appeal to pathos, we will see many more examples of this in the article.
Another tactic that the author uses in this article is his use of examples. This "exemplification strategy" was used in the other paragraph where he describes the warnings of these before and the fact that many high ranking. Also his accurate description of the "who-knew-what-when" shows us the long backpeddlng of the English banking regulatory systems.
Finally, in the conclusion, the author doesn't really give a rebuttle, but he may give a small concession. This comes in the form of shifting the blame of this scandal by showing us the origins of the economic situation. A situation that may allow for less regulation out of fear and an industry all based on big returns, even if that comes from excessive risk.
Can't really be surprised, both Obama and Romney will get millions upon millions from banking companies and wall street. We can't really be surprised that the prosecution of these greedy bastards who decide these rates over afternoon tea would be the slightest bit urgent or justly. Even now, I'm sure there are people who want less regulation for the foxes in the hen house.
SHAZAM!
No comments:
Post a Comment