I once had a wife. She became unhappy in the marriage and began making demands for change in the relationship. We negotiated various 4th level compromises. Nothing seemed to relieve her dissatisfaction until we realized her conflicts were global in nature. There were no solutions on that level so we got divorced and lived happily ever after.
Question 2:
Mario Savio began his speech with the analogy that Sproul Hall was to student rights what circa 1964 Mississippi was to civil rights. The analogy and allusion to Brave New World worked well to imply much more sinister motives to the university bureaucracy, willful suppression of students' rights rather than mere apathy towards them. Savio argues many times from a global perspective, even mentioning twice that their ideals were worth dying for. That seems to be exaggerated but consistent with global values
Question 3:
Dr. Bullard argues primarily from the stasis of fact/conjecture. This leaves several loose ends for me, points that could be argued as unproven. For instance, the Brentwood post office was not handled the same as the senate building when anthrax was discovered. That is a fact but its unclear to me how that fact proves racism. I could find any number of alternatives to explain the fact without resorting to the draconian specter of racism. It would be just as easily argued that the discrimination is against poor people of whatever race. If Dr. Bullard argued with cause statements he might make a more convincing case.
