In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is as relevant as ever. His argument that America's "culture of fear" and the prevalence of weapons within everyday society are the root causes of the high rates of gun violence and school shootings seen in the last several years is correct, however, the documentary did not do justice to the argument that the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed to Americans for a reason.
One thing Moore did very persuasively in his documentary was demonstrate the absurdity of having assualt weapons and ammunition for sale to nearly anyone with an interest in buying one. In one fo the opening scenes, Moore walks into a bank advertising a free gun with the setup of an account there. As he leaves, he jokingly asks, "Doesn't it seem a bit dangerous to sell guns at a bank?" This idea is continued when he goes to a local Wal-Mart and asks to buy the bullets used by the shooters at Columbine, and is handed them seemingly without any sort of identification required. However, Moore shows that change is possible when he goes to Wal-Mart headquarters with victims of the shooting and talks to them about the supposed problem, to which the leaders of Wal-Mart decide to stop selling ammunition. However, the point about the ease of gun ownership in America still rings true today; websites like Armslist.com and GunsAmerica.com make buying guns with minimal background checks increasingly easy.
This ease of access isn't what Moore finds to be the only real problem though. He explains the various hypotheses of why school shootings happen, citing violent video games, Marilyn Manson's rock and roll music, bullying, and general teen angst, but his personal take is much more convincing: Americans have become so afraid of their next-door neighbors that we have become desensitized to using guns in "defense."An example of this so-called "Cuture of Fear" can be seen in polls asking Americans about their concern over drug abuse; over half of the one poll's population stated their concern for drug use has risen in the last 5 years, despite the prevalence of drug abuse staying fairly constant. With the media quick to tackles stories of (often drug-related) murders and violent crimes, this hyper-awareness seems almost natural, and Moore demonstrates quite effectively the damage it can do on the American psyche.
As stated earlier, Moore did not do justice to the arguments of right-wing pro-gun groups like the NRA, but instead subtly mocked them as lunatic and dangerous. Many interviewees stated that they felt obligated to protect "what's theirs" or that they distrusted the federal government, but their heavy accents and the back stories provided damaged their reputability for the sake of the documentary. The Second Amendment, while created in a time when guns were far less dangerous than modern day, is meant to provide the citizens with a means of overthrowing any government that became too powerful or oppressive. States the Second Amendment Foundation, "self defense is a human right." While Moore may not agree with these views, (I also believe gun ownership should be regulated more strictly across America,) these views should have been presented more fairly in the documentary, at least to show his understanding and compassion with all viewpoints on the matter.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Unit 5 TOW 2 Bowling for Columbine
Bowling for Columbine. Dir. Michael Moore. United Artists, 2002. Film.
Bowling for Columbine, by social critic Michael Moore, explores the underlying issues of the Columbine High School massacre and American gun violence in general. In the film, Moore notes that homicides are so much more prevalent in America than in other developed countries not because of the music we listen to, video games we play, or even the number of guns we own, but because of our culture of fear. He essentially says that throughout their history white Americans have been afraid of one thing after another, which has made us desensitized to gun violence and death. In the case of Columbine, this culture of fear led two high school introverts to shoot at the their fellow students one fateful day, killing 13 other students and injuring another 21. He also infers that Lockheed Martin, the weapon manufacturer that employs the largest number of people in Littleton, Colorado (the location of Columbine High), was an indirect cause of the massacre. The overall message of the film is strongly pro-gun legislation, despite several interviews with gun "fanatics" about their opinions.
Almost every one of the devices/strategies mentioned on the worksheet was used at least once in the film, but one of the most obvious Moore incorporated was the use of juxtaposition. For example, he played a montage of historical foreign policies that portrayed America as the aggressor nation, with pictures of dead civilians and (often democratically elected) leaders with each example. In the background, however, Moore played "What A Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong. The happy emotions of the song make the audience more aware of the discrepancy between what they hear and what they feel from the images rolling past, and furthermore almost betrayed that the two things do not match, as if they've been lied to.
Moore also uses expert testimony in various ways to make his point about the poor gun policy in America. He interviews Marilyn Manson, a rock star who was incorrectly blamed for the Columbine massacre, Littleton resident and South Park creator Matt Stone, author Barry Glassner, and comedian Chris Rock, all of whom seem to share the same opinion of Moore and are thus displayed positively. Alternately, gun fanatics like James Nichols, brother of Terry Nichols, who was convicted for the Oklahoma city shooting, and former NRA president Charles Heston, are subtly criticized by Moore, who portrays them as crazy and inhumane. By talking to his opponents, Moore makes himself seem more credible in his stance, and thus the audience is more likely to help further the gun legislation cause.
Bowling for Columbine, by social critic Michael Moore, explores the underlying issues of the Columbine High School massacre and American gun violence in general. In the film, Moore notes that homicides are so much more prevalent in America than in other developed countries not because of the music we listen to, video games we play, or even the number of guns we own, but because of our culture of fear. He essentially says that throughout their history white Americans have been afraid of one thing after another, which has made us desensitized to gun violence and death. In the case of Columbine, this culture of fear led two high school introverts to shoot at the their fellow students one fateful day, killing 13 other students and injuring another 21. He also infers that Lockheed Martin, the weapon manufacturer that employs the largest number of people in Littleton, Colorado (the location of Columbine High), was an indirect cause of the massacre. The overall message of the film is strongly pro-gun legislation, despite several interviews with gun "fanatics" about their opinions.
Almost every one of the devices/strategies mentioned on the worksheet was used at least once in the film, but one of the most obvious Moore incorporated was the use of juxtaposition. For example, he played a montage of historical foreign policies that portrayed America as the aggressor nation, with pictures of dead civilians and (often democratically elected) leaders with each example. In the background, however, Moore played "What A Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong. The happy emotions of the song make the audience more aware of the discrepancy between what they hear and what they feel from the images rolling past, and furthermore almost betrayed that the two things do not match, as if they've been lied to.
Moore also uses expert testimony in various ways to make his point about the poor gun policy in America. He interviews Marilyn Manson, a rock star who was incorrectly blamed for the Columbine massacre, Littleton resident and South Park creator Matt Stone, author Barry Glassner, and comedian Chris Rock, all of whom seem to share the same opinion of Moore and are thus displayed positively. Alternately, gun fanatics like James Nichols, brother of Terry Nichols, who was convicted for the Oklahoma city shooting, and former NRA president Charles Heston, are subtly criticized by Moore, who portrays them as crazy and inhumane. By talking to his opponents, Moore makes himself seem more credible in his stance, and thus the audience is more likely to help further the gun legislation cause.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Metacognitive Reflection
For Unit 5's Reflection, I reviewed my previous TOWs on Red Bull Stratos, the article "Never Mind Talent," and the Audi Superbowl Ad, respectively. In the first one, I noticed I relied substantially on summery, and only had 1 concluding paragraph discussing the rhetoric of the video. The TOW's length did not reflect the minimal information provided. In the second TOW, there was a noticeable difference in the amount of rhetorical analysis, and the length of the blog entry was much more appropriate. The writing style reminds me of Argument essays, which reflects what we had covered in class up to that point in time. My last TOW, from the 3rd maring period, was extremely long, discussed multiple rhetorical devices, and even made a solid attempt at analyzing the effectiveness of the advertisement. The TOW seemed like 5/6ths AP English information and only 1/6th summary, and I was even impressed with my own mentioning of the context of the ad: Superbowl ads tend to be about being cool rather than informative.
Overall, I feel like I have mastered the art of picking out rhetorical devices and strategies in various texts and videos, but I can still improve my ability to analyze each strategy's effectiveness, as well as being concise in doing so. This year's TOW assignments were meant to encourage me and my classmates' actively reading of a variety of texts, and putting the information we've learned in class to the test. Overall, I think my TOWs reflected how I've grown over the course of the year, but did not help me actually grow themselves. I say this because I did not use any of my sources on 5.10.13, and each week when I went to write my TOW, it felt like busy work to me, rather than an opportunity to learn.
Overall, I feel like I have mastered the art of picking out rhetorical devices and strategies in various texts and videos, but I can still improve my ability to analyze each strategy's effectiveness, as well as being concise in doing so. This year's TOW assignments were meant to encourage me and my classmates' actively reading of a variety of texts, and putting the information we've learned in class to the test. Overall, I think my TOWs reflected how I've grown over the course of the year, but did not help me actually grow themselves. I say this because I did not use any of my sources on 5.10.13, and each week when I went to write my TOW, it felt like busy work to me, rather than an opportunity to learn.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Atlanta Compromise
I decided I might as well try to get some AP Exam prep in, so this week's reading came from a mock test.
Booker T. Washington is widely regarded as one of the most influential leaders in African American history; his work inspired freedmen of the late 1800s, as well as several later Civil Rights figures like Martin Luther King Jr. As an educated freeman himself, and the creator of the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute, Washington was held in high esteem by blacks and even some whites. His speech The Atlanta Compromise argues that freedmen should do the best they can with the horrible living and social conditions of the South, and focus mainly on excelling in their low-paying, labor jobs, rather than fighting for immediate change. His controversial moderate approach to racial integration gained support in this speech because of Washington's style, tone, and use of an allegory to drive his point home.
Washington uses intense imagery throughout his argument, especially when referring to the bucket being "cast down." He writes, The captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction, cast down his bucket, and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the Amazon River" (lines 35-39). This imagery develops into an allegory about a lost ship saved by the passengers' utilization of what was around them, to convey that freedmen needed to be independent and determined to save themselves from the troubles of the South. The repetition of the phrase "cast down your bucket" continues to impact the audience and lends the passage a tone of urgency to his speech; it keeps the audience hanging onto his words.
It was also very important for Booker T. Washington demonstrate his own education and control of language throughout the essay, in order to gain support from white legislators who might begin to push for change on the blacks' behalf. His own oration proved that the black race was not the inferior one mentally, but that given the right oppurtunities blacks could be helpful and productive members of society. Overall, his call for newly freed slaves in the South to seize the limited opportunities they had and excel at them, rather than complain and demand more immediate change, was extremely effective, demonstrated by the wide support for Washington amongst the black community of the time.
Booker T. Washington is widely regarded as one of the most influential leaders in African American history; his work inspired freedmen of the late 1800s, as well as several later Civil Rights figures like Martin Luther King Jr. As an educated freeman himself, and the creator of the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute, Washington was held in high esteem by blacks and even some whites. His speech The Atlanta Compromise argues that freedmen should do the best they can with the horrible living and social conditions of the South, and focus mainly on excelling in their low-paying, labor jobs, rather than fighting for immediate change. His controversial moderate approach to racial integration gained support in this speech because of Washington's style, tone, and use of an allegory to drive his point home.
Washington uses intense imagery throughout his argument, especially when referring to the bucket being "cast down." He writes, The captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction, cast down his bucket, and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the Amazon River" (lines 35-39). This imagery develops into an allegory about a lost ship saved by the passengers' utilization of what was around them, to convey that freedmen needed to be independent and determined to save themselves from the troubles of the South. The repetition of the phrase "cast down your bucket" continues to impact the audience and lends the passage a tone of urgency to his speech; it keeps the audience hanging onto his words.
It was also very important for Booker T. Washington demonstrate his own education and control of language throughout the essay, in order to gain support from white legislators who might begin to push for change on the blacks' behalf. His own oration proved that the black race was not the inferior one mentally, but that given the right oppurtunities blacks could be helpful and productive members of society. Overall, his call for newly freed slaves in the South to seize the limited opportunities they had and excel at them, rather than complain and demand more immediate change, was extremely effective, demonstrated by the wide support for Washington amongst the black community of the time.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
IRB: Freakonomics: 2
It's clear that Steven Levitt knows how to make his economics book practically jump off the shelves; rather than discussing the tax returns or typical organization of a franchise, this chapter was all about drugs and the gangs of Chicago ghettos. The following chapter, arguably Levitt's most controversial one in all of his works, combines two topics that Americans are so interested in that they seem to jump off the page: abortion and its potential to decrease crime rates long-term. But these topics teach more than just obscure connections between seemingly unrelated, yet fascinating, stories. The collection and synthesis of the data displayed demonstrates Levitt's overarching message: how to ask the right questions. He writes, "If you can question something that people really care about and find an answer that might surprise them—that is, if you can overturn the conventional wisdom—then you may have some luck" (89). Accordingly, this chapter's title is: Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms?
Rhetorically, Levitt goes beyond asking intriguing questions. Rather than displaying several tables of statistics on the operations of drug gangs, he takes his readers on a journey with a relateable and extremely intelligent man named Venkatesh, who actually lived with and studied a Chicago gang first-hand. This gets the audience interested in the story at hand, and makes the reader emotionally invested in the statistics later explained. And this drug gang has more than one layer: it acts as an analogy to the corporate world. Levitt writes, "So how did the gang work? An awful lot like most American businesses, actually, though perhaps none more so than McDonald's. In fact, if you were to hold a McDonald's organizational chart and a Black Disciples chart side by side, you could hardly tell the difference" (99). Thus, Levitt is able to connect the obscure topic back to something his middle-class audience can relate to.
This book is extremely interesting, but I don't honestly feel like it has drastically changed the way I consider the world around me. I feel like I may have failed Levitt, but to be fair I'm not a professional economist or question-asker. (How cool would that job title be, by the way?)
Rhetorically, Levitt goes beyond asking intriguing questions. Rather than displaying several tables of statistics on the operations of drug gangs, he takes his readers on a journey with a relateable and extremely intelligent man named Venkatesh, who actually lived with and studied a Chicago gang first-hand. This gets the audience interested in the story at hand, and makes the reader emotionally invested in the statistics later explained. And this drug gang has more than one layer: it acts as an analogy to the corporate world. Levitt writes, "So how did the gang work? An awful lot like most American businesses, actually, though perhaps none more so than McDonald's. In fact, if you were to hold a McDonald's organizational chart and a Black Disciples chart side by side, you could hardly tell the difference" (99). Thus, Levitt is able to connect the obscure topic back to something his middle-class audience can relate to.
This book is extremely interesting, but I don't honestly feel like it has drastically changed the way I consider the world around me. I feel like I may have failed Levitt, but to be fair I'm not a professional economist or question-asker. (How cool would that job title be, by the way?)
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Saying No to College
With this spring break's college tours on the horizon, I've become hyper aware of the entire college process, and admittedly decide to Google "Is college worth it?" just in case I would be wasting up to $40,000 a year on a diploma that might leave me jobless in a troubling economy. And what I got was interesting, but actually I felt more secure in my own drive for college after reading it than I had before, if only because reading "Saying No to College" by Alex Williams ade me realize my own objections to the logic portrain.
The main rhetorical mode used in the New York Times article was exemplification, the use of specific examples to prove a point. Here, Williams discusses the fate of high-profile college drop-outs who have "succeeded." He writes, "Bill Gates dropped out of college. So did Michael Dell. So did Mr.
Zuckerberg, who made the Forbes billionaires list at 23" demonstrating that the risk of dropping out can be one of the best decisions in a young person's life, if it inspires them to think differently and do what they love. However, who is to say that these men are/were happy, even if they did make a lot of money? What makes them successful? Furthermore, these often-quoted names on the topic of dropping out are 1 in a billion (although some might argue that they were successful BECAUSE they dropped out, which is another argument altogether and a pretty tough one at that) and should not be considered the norm. Using these men to exemplify an argument is like displaying the women who lost 95 lbs on a commercial diet only to display the small font underneath "results not typical."
After reading this article, I felt more established in my opinion that college is necessary for MOST people looking to live financially and emotionally successful lives. The mere qualification of my claim can be accreddited to this article, but I think it was more successful at establishing that the key to success is "lov[ing] what you do" and "not sett[ling]."
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Wait, Why Can't We Eat Other People Again?
In the spirit of this week's A Modest Proposal, I've decided to analyze another piece of satirical writing, this time from the notorious "news source," The Onion. The article, entitled "Wait, Why Can't We Eat Other People Again?" makes an argument similar to Jonathon Swift's: we should eat children for dinner. The only difference is the reasoning for the claim. However, the major similarity is clearly an allusion to A Modest Proposal, which is part of what makes it humorous.
Technically, my earlier description of the article was incorrect. The article is not satirical, because it does not aim to make the audience think critically about the subject, but rather just to make the audience laugh. A Modest Proposal was discussing the famine and poverty in Ireland, and criticizing the government for not helping the starving population. This article simply argues that we should eat people because there isn't any reason not to. In fact, Doug Brusey questions or societal "rules," "Hey, what if that’s it? What if the one guy in history that tried to eat another person cooked it all wrong and it came out weird and chewy? Wouldn’t that be a dumb reason to not eat people?"
This irony is the main source of humor in the passage. As a test of the audience's logic, the irony asks the audience to fully understand that Brusey is not in fact a psychopathic cannibal, (especially in the closing line, "Either way, I actually just ate a family of three, and, if I can be honest, they were a little gamey"). Once they understand this, they can laugh at the comparison of babies to animals raised for slaughter and jokingly agree with Brusey's point of view.
The peice was clearly not nearly as effective as A Modest Proposal, but its allusions to the famous piece ("Now, in fairness, I’m pretty sure it’s okay to eat a human child if you want") and its ironic message were both humorous because they relied on the cultural memory and overall competence of the audience to grasp the joke. And if the purpose of the article was to merely make the audience chuckle, (which is actually quite simplistic for typical The Onion commentaries) then the article was indeed effective.
Technically, my earlier description of the article was incorrect. The article is not satirical, because it does not aim to make the audience think critically about the subject, but rather just to make the audience laugh. A Modest Proposal was discussing the famine and poverty in Ireland, and criticizing the government for not helping the starving population. This article simply argues that we should eat people because there isn't any reason not to. In fact, Doug Brusey questions or societal "rules," "Hey, what if that’s it? What if the one guy in history that tried to eat another person cooked it all wrong and it came out weird and chewy? Wouldn’t that be a dumb reason to not eat people?"
This irony is the main source of humor in the passage. As a test of the audience's logic, the irony asks the audience to fully understand that Brusey is not in fact a psychopathic cannibal, (especially in the closing line, "Either way, I actually just ate a family of three, and, if I can be honest, they were a little gamey"). Once they understand this, they can laugh at the comparison of babies to animals raised for slaughter and jokingly agree with Brusey's point of view.
The peice was clearly not nearly as effective as A Modest Proposal, but its allusions to the famous piece ("Now, in fairness, I’m pretty sure it’s okay to eat a human child if you want") and its ironic message were both humorous because they relied on the cultural memory and overall competence of the audience to grasp the joke. And if the purpose of the article was to merely make the audience chuckle, (which is actually quite simplistic for typical The Onion commentaries) then the article was indeed effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)