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.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Same Love: Music Video
I've been a fan of Macklemore since I first heard "Thrift Shop" last November, but when I heard "Same Love," I realized his true talent as a rapper. The song argues for marriage equality eloquently, which has been such a taboo topic in pop culture for a long time and is only just now being discussed somewhat openly. The music video adds beauty to an already powerful message, and has already gone far in the fight for gay rights both politically and socially. Hopefully the stir over the song and video is only just beginning.
The video, directed by Ryan Lewis and Jon Jon Augustavo, incorporates a myriad of rhetorical devices, ranging from a chronological arrangement with a full-circle ending to several allusions to pop culture and American history. The full circle ending, which uses the setting of a hospital and the image of people holding hands as (beginning) a baby is born and (end) a beloved husband passes away, makes the audience connect the beautiful moments and realize that the love (portrayed by the similarity of holding hands) really is the " same" no matter the couple, and that every human being alive should be allowed the privledge of being with their beloved in the hospital. The audience might then start thinking about the fact that this basic right is denied to gay couples in states where they are incapable of marriage, and thus the audience wouldst pathetic towards couples in this situation and therefore feel angry about the laws in place.
Another important rhetorical device used in the video, and several other music videos as well, is the cultural references made to connect with the audience and make them reflect on their own lives. Macklemore references YouTube and Little League for their roles in promoting intolerance to gays, and to make his audience think about if they have ever said or done something derogatory in an Internet comment or the like. By incorporating aspects of cultural memory, Macklemore might be stopping (even just a few) of his listeners from writing "that's gay" the next time they want to insult someone or something. Furthermore, the song and video reference the American Civil Rights Movement, by incorporating lyrics such as "the same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins/ It's human rights for everybody, there is no difference!" This makes an extremely effective argument, as there are few Americans today who would argue that blacks deserve less rights or that Martin Luther King Jr was a bad influence on American history. Thus, the audience would realize that one day when Americans look back at the country's current state of intolerance, it will seem like a giant, stupid mistake. To achieve equality though, the video reminds the audience that they need to take a stand in the same way Rosa Parks did half a century ago. And after watching this powerful video, the audience might feel compelled to do that. Or at least approve Ref 74, the "place to start" that the video very simply asks in the last seconds of the video. While "Same Love" will by no means single-handedly gain equal rights for the LBGT community, it has effectively brought the issue to the rap and pop culture community, where most of the intolerance is seeded most deeply, and makes an extremely compelling argument that a) gays deserve rights and b) the audience should support the effort to give gays these rights.
The video, directed by Ryan Lewis and Jon Jon Augustavo, incorporates a myriad of rhetorical devices, ranging from a chronological arrangement with a full-circle ending to several allusions to pop culture and American history. The full circle ending, which uses the setting of a hospital and the image of people holding hands as (beginning) a baby is born and (end) a beloved husband passes away, makes the audience connect the beautiful moments and realize that the love (portrayed by the similarity of holding hands) really is the " same" no matter the couple, and that every human being alive should be allowed the privledge of being with their beloved in the hospital. The audience might then start thinking about the fact that this basic right is denied to gay couples in states where they are incapable of marriage, and thus the audience wouldst pathetic towards couples in this situation and therefore feel angry about the laws in place.
Another important rhetorical device used in the video, and several other music videos as well, is the cultural references made to connect with the audience and make them reflect on their own lives. Macklemore references YouTube and Little League for their roles in promoting intolerance to gays, and to make his audience think about if they have ever said or done something derogatory in an Internet comment or the like. By incorporating aspects of cultural memory, Macklemore might be stopping (even just a few) of his listeners from writing "that's gay" the next time they want to insult someone or something. Furthermore, the song and video reference the American Civil Rights Movement, by incorporating lyrics such as "the same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins/ It's human rights for everybody, there is no difference!" This makes an extremely effective argument, as there are few Americans today who would argue that blacks deserve less rights or that Martin Luther King Jr was a bad influence on American history. Thus, the audience would realize that one day when Americans look back at the country's current state of intolerance, it will seem like a giant, stupid mistake. To achieve equality though, the video reminds the audience that they need to take a stand in the same way Rosa Parks did half a century ago. And after watching this powerful video, the audience might feel compelled to do that. Or at least approve Ref 74, the "place to start" that the video very simply asks in the last seconds of the video. While "Same Love" will by no means single-handedly gain equal rights for the LBGT community, it has effectively brought the issue to the rap and pop culture community, where most of the intolerance is seeded most deeply, and makes an extremely compelling argument that a) gays deserve rights and b) the audience should support the effort to give gays these rights.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
IRB: Freakonomics
Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt takes a fresh perspective on the modern world's crime, sports, and parenting, in what feels similar to my first marking period's IRB, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. In fact, Malcolm Gladwell's review is on the cover of the book, demonstrating the similarities in writing style, primary audience, and topic to Gladwell's works. In the first chapter of Freakonomics, Levitt discusses incentives, particularly in the realm of "cheating teachers."
The primary rhetorical device is the use of statistics to appeal to the audience's sense of logic. For example, on page 22 Levitt uses a chart to demonstrates the drop in crime as society has advanced. To demonstrate crime, he uses the statistics for average number of homicides per 1000 people in several European countries for each century, because as he notes, "[homicide] is both the most reliably measured crime and the best barometer of a society's overall crime rate." This effectively demonstrates his claims in a credible, irrefutable manner. Using statistics is a way of saying to the audience "this is why I am correct in my statement. There is no arguing these facts." In this sense, it was a very effective choice to use these statistics early on in the book, as it establishes Levitt's credibility as a thinker and a writer, so the audience is more likely to agree with his other findings later on.
The primary rhetorical device is the use of statistics to appeal to the audience's sense of logic. For example, on page 22 Levitt uses a chart to demonstrates the drop in crime as society has advanced. To demonstrate crime, he uses the statistics for average number of homicides per 1000 people in several European countries for each century, because as he notes, "[homicide] is both the most reliably measured crime and the best barometer of a society's overall crime rate." This effectively demonstrates his claims in a credible, irrefutable manner. Using statistics is a way of saying to the audience "this is why I am correct in my statement. There is no arguing these facts." In this sense, it was a very effective choice to use these statistics early on in the book, as it establishes Levitt's credibility as a thinker and a writer, so the audience is more likely to agree with his other findings later on.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Baby Kimye
In this week's TOW, Hadley Freeman wrote a biting "letter" to "Kimye," aka Kanye West's and Kim Kardashian's future baby, in which she gave advice for growing up in such a materialistic and egomaniacal world. Interestingly enough, Freeman writes for The Guardian, a British newspaper, when Kim and Kanye are primarily American "royalty." In fact, her outsider's perspective may have been the driving factor in shaping the piece, as it enabled her to criticize the lifestyles of Hollywood celebrities today and lend the work the tone of absolute disgust. In a world where TMZ and In Touch Weekly devote so much time and energy gossiping over potential names and outfits for the baby-to-be, Freeman manages to question why the world cares by mocking the genre of "trashy" tabloids thematically.
Her article is set up as an open letter to the future baby, as if the baby can read it within Kim's womb to prepare for its entrance into the world of fame and fortune. This format is explained very clearly by Freeman, who writes, "The open letter is a crucial part of the British journalist's arsenal, only deployed in the most arrogant of tones and for the most important of issues, such as when a journalist does not like a director's recent filmor when the journalist is concerned about Kate Middleton's diet. So feel the validation here, Baby Kimye." She continues each paragraph by discussing the baby's tabloid-dubbed name and its reflection of the parents' selfishness, the low-class drama that follows around Kanye and the Kardashian klan, and her expectations for the birth of the baby to be televised on E! for the sake of entertainment. Moreover, each observation of the family is followed by lines of praise towards the baby and its family, although this praise is very clearly ironic and meant to show the faults of others for worshipping these "talentless" people.
Freeman ends her letter by writing, "Kimye, you are no mere baby. You are the climactic epitome of all that US culture has been headed towards for the past 20 years, combining as you do reality TV, musical talent, fame with no talent, famous for being famous, celebrity, the debasing of hip-hop, a bottomless need for attention, sex tapes, hip-hop, bad fashion, Twitter, Instagram, tmz.com, the E! channel and OJ Simpson. You are America's Golden Child, Kimye. We bow before you." I sincerely think there are no more insulting words towards the vanity of Hollywood's stars and their worshipping public, and the use of words such as "culture" and "America's Golden Child" only highlight the disappointment Freeman has in the modern world.
I occasionally enjoy watching KUWtK, as I find it entertaining to watch the mayhem of such a superficial lifestyle, but after reading this I realize that even watching the show as a joke is feeding the public image and hype over these people, and I have made a resolution to stop caring about this poor baby, except to recognize the tragedy of having to grow up with these selfish people as parents. For that, I think that this "letter" was very effective in accomplishing its purpose.
Her article is set up as an open letter to the future baby, as if the baby can read it within Kim's womb to prepare for its entrance into the world of fame and fortune. This format is explained very clearly by Freeman, who writes, "The open letter is a crucial part of the British journalist's arsenal, only deployed in the most arrogant of tones and for the most important of issues, such as when a journalist does not like a director's recent filmor when the journalist is concerned about Kate Middleton's diet. So feel the validation here, Baby Kimye." She continues each paragraph by discussing the baby's tabloid-dubbed name and its reflection of the parents' selfishness, the low-class drama that follows around Kanye and the Kardashian klan, and her expectations for the birth of the baby to be televised on E! for the sake of entertainment. Moreover, each observation of the family is followed by lines of praise towards the baby and its family, although this praise is very clearly ironic and meant to show the faults of others for worshipping these "talentless" people.
Freeman ends her letter by writing, "Kimye, you are no mere baby. You are the climactic epitome of all that US culture has been headed towards for the past 20 years, combining as you do reality TV, musical talent, fame with no talent, famous for being famous, celebrity, the debasing of hip-hop, a bottomless need for attention, sex tapes, hip-hop, bad fashion, Twitter, Instagram, tmz.com, the E! channel and OJ Simpson. You are America's Golden Child, Kimye. We bow before you." I sincerely think there are no more insulting words towards the vanity of Hollywood's stars and their worshipping public, and the use of words such as "culture" and "America's Golden Child" only highlight the disappointment Freeman has in the modern world.
I occasionally enjoy watching KUWtK, as I find it entertaining to watch the mayhem of such a superficial lifestyle, but after reading this I realize that even watching the show as a joke is feeding the public image and hype over these people, and I have made a resolution to stop caring about this poor baby, except to recognize the tragedy of having to grow up with these selfish people as parents. For that, I think that this "letter" was very effective in accomplishing its purpose.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Drones beat the alternative: USA Today
I've been hearing about drones on the news a lot lately, and today when I asked my dad about them, he told me they were essentially remote controlled aerial vehicle that could target and kill Al-Qaida terrorists. Intrigued, I decided to do this week's TOW on an article explaining why drones should be utilized by the American military. Written by the editorial board of USA Today, this article makes the claim, "But for all the controversy, the drone attacks have this going for them: They are effective, and the other options are worse."
This article utilized logos to make its point, by pointing out the flaws in the opposing side's argument (They Say/I Say) and making its own argument that drones are the best way to prevent as much death of "collateral" citizens as possible. The article actually begins by pointing out common concerns with drones, but proceeds to demonstrate that these risks are worth it. By using the technique of "They Say/I Say," the article effectively establishes credibility by proving that the authors have knowledge of both sides and are making their claim very deliberately. It also helps demonstrate why readers shouldn't side with the opposition, or that they should change their mind if they already are "anti-drone."
The article also qualifies its argument by stating that the White House should be more open about the "gray area" surrounding drones, which again demonstrates the authors' credibility in their claim that "drones should keep flying." They also implied that the secrecy surrounding the deaths of three US citizens via drones was haunting, but the article did not go far into this topic, as it might contradict the argument being made.
Before reading this article, I was concerned with the use of drones because I feared that they might be used on US citizens, especially once other countries had the technology to build their own drones. I also was concerned with the ethics of killing people in this manner, but after reading this article I realized that drones are in fact one of the most ethical methods of assassinating terrorists leaders, because by this article's figures, fewer civilians are killed in the process. While I am still concerned with their use in killing American citizens (I haven't decided my opinion on killing American Al-Qaida leaders), this article effectively made me reconsider my views and want to look further into the topic of military drones.
This article utilized logos to make its point, by pointing out the flaws in the opposing side's argument (They Say/I Say) and making its own argument that drones are the best way to prevent as much death of "collateral" citizens as possible. The article actually begins by pointing out common concerns with drones, but proceeds to demonstrate that these risks are worth it. By using the technique of "They Say/I Say," the article effectively establishes credibility by proving that the authors have knowledge of both sides and are making their claim very deliberately. It also helps demonstrate why readers shouldn't side with the opposition, or that they should change their mind if they already are "anti-drone."
The article also qualifies its argument by stating that the White House should be more open about the "gray area" surrounding drones, which again demonstrates the authors' credibility in their claim that "drones should keep flying." They also implied that the secrecy surrounding the deaths of three US citizens via drones was haunting, but the article did not go far into this topic, as it might contradict the argument being made.
Before reading this article, I was concerned with the use of drones because I feared that they might be used on US citizens, especially once other countries had the technology to build their own drones. I also was concerned with the ethics of killing people in this manner, but after reading this article I realized that drones are in fact one of the most ethical methods of assassinating terrorists leaders, because by this article's figures, fewer civilians are killed in the process. While I am still concerned with their use in killing American citizens (I haven't decided my opinion on killing American Al-Qaida leaders), this article effectively made me reconsider my views and want to look further into the topic of military drones.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Superbowl Advertisement: Brave Audi
In honor of Super Bowl Sunday, I decided to make my TOW about a powerful advertisement for Audi, in which a teenage boy takes the car to prom and in doing so gains the confidence to kiss the girl of his dreams. The Super Bowl is known for its advertisements, which in some cases attract more viewers than the actual game itself. As a result of this notoriety, several Super Bowl ads rely more on being entertaining and interesting than actually informative, so as to increase awareness about their product, rather than relying mainly on logos to sway an audience.
The advertisement made the argument that the audience should purchase an Audi, based on the evidence that the boy shown gained enormous confidence simply by driving one. This was demonstrated by the progression of the boy from awkwardly having his mother pin his boutonniere on in a dark house (the lighting reflected the somber mood), to riding away from prom with a black eye (from the girl's Prom King boyfriend) and screaming at the top of his lungs, apparently full of excitement from living life to its fullest. The assumption is that the audience should feel confident when driving a car, which fits the luxury type cars that Audi sells. Furthermore, the target audience of this commercial is primarily teenagers who are searching for their first car (since they can relate to the boy shown) and their parents, since the dad's "cool" gesture to his son was a message to other parents about a potential way to connect with their teens.
The details are what made this advertisement special. The boy starts out in a dark house, with his younger sister making comments about his single status that only further emphasize how "uncool" he is. As he sits down in the Audi, the bright lights illuminate the logo, and from that point onward the commercial is a blaze of flashing lights, pump-up music, and confident smiles. The boy parks in the Principal's parking lot (an example of the "carpe diem" attitude inspired by the Audi,) gets noticed by the students who have supposedly ignored him until that moment, and speeds along an empty, lit bridge to complete the picture of pure exhilaration. The effect of these details was to make the audience feel the emotion of the boy as if they were him, although I'm not sure the advertisement was entirely effective.
Perhaps it is because I live in a society that has become so immune to the messages of advertisements, but I feel no real desire to go out and buy an Audi simply because some actor rode in one and had "the time of his life." To be effective, I would need statistics about other features of the car, such as its price, fuel efficiency, and durability. In a sense, I am "begging the question" about the major premise of this advertisement. However, if the point of the ad was for me to remember the commercial and the car brand, then clearly it was effective, as I chose this commercial out of several of the night to write about.
http://www.hulu.com/adzone/450448?playlist_id=1031&asset_scope=all
The advertisement made the argument that the audience should purchase an Audi, based on the evidence that the boy shown gained enormous confidence simply by driving one. This was demonstrated by the progression of the boy from awkwardly having his mother pin his boutonniere on in a dark house (the lighting reflected the somber mood), to riding away from prom with a black eye (from the girl's Prom King boyfriend) and screaming at the top of his lungs, apparently full of excitement from living life to its fullest. The assumption is that the audience should feel confident when driving a car, which fits the luxury type cars that Audi sells. Furthermore, the target audience of this commercial is primarily teenagers who are searching for their first car (since they can relate to the boy shown) and their parents, since the dad's "cool" gesture to his son was a message to other parents about a potential way to connect with their teens.
The details are what made this advertisement special. The boy starts out in a dark house, with his younger sister making comments about his single status that only further emphasize how "uncool" he is. As he sits down in the Audi, the bright lights illuminate the logo, and from that point onward the commercial is a blaze of flashing lights, pump-up music, and confident smiles. The boy parks in the Principal's parking lot (an example of the "carpe diem" attitude inspired by the Audi,) gets noticed by the students who have supposedly ignored him until that moment, and speeds along an empty, lit bridge to complete the picture of pure exhilaration. The effect of these details was to make the audience feel the emotion of the boy as if they were him, although I'm not sure the advertisement was entirely effective.
Perhaps it is because I live in a society that has become so immune to the messages of advertisements, but I feel no real desire to go out and buy an Audi simply because some actor rode in one and had "the time of his life." To be effective, I would need statistics about other features of the car, such as its price, fuel efficiency, and durability. In a sense, I am "begging the question" about the major premise of this advertisement. However, if the point of the ad was for me to remember the commercial and the car brand, then clearly it was effective, as I chose this commercial out of several of the night to write about.
http://www.hulu.com/adzone/450448?playlist_id=1031&asset_scope=all
Monday, January 21, 2013
Revised: Humans Aren't the Only Victims of War
There's something about the death of a dog that just strikes a chord with nearly everyone. Perhaps it has something to do with the dog's innocence and unyielding loyalty, but whatever it is, I seem to linger on images like this every single time. While iwastesomuchtime.com (I know, but it's addicting) typically displays funny internet memes, statuses, and comics, sometimes a meaningful image like this appears and makes me stop for a minute. Sometimes that's all rhetors really want from their audience: a moment of thought and appreciation towards the topic displayed.
Dogs have been used in warfare since the time of the Ancient Egyptians, and have been a valuable part of the military since. They are commonly used for scout duty, to warn of enemy attacks, find the injured, and to carry supplies and messages during combat. In fact, some sources estimate that each military dog saves about 150 lives in combat. And yet, just like the thousands of other soldiers fighting for our freedom and security in a far off nation, we as Americans tend to forget their sacrifice, and need to be reminded of it every so often.
Just like in O'Brien's How To Tell A True War Story, I think the death of animals is used to draw emotion from the audience, especially because the death of soldiers unfortunately faces apathy from the general public in today's world. The composition of this photo draws the audience down the soldier's arm to the sweet dog below, then pulls our attention to the memorial that the subjects are looking at as well. Here we see a memorial for 25 dogs that have given their lives, perhaps unknowingly so, for the noble pursuit of freedom. The man and dog staring at the memorial are paying their respects, (even if the dog doesn't understand the significance of the memorial) and the man is taking a moment to show his best friend his love. All this emotion makes the audience feel emotionally connected to the dog pictured and the other dogs that have given their lives, because the death of something so pure can be felt by all. This makes the audience aware and grateful for the jobs of dogs in the military that perform jobs humans are incapable of doing.
This image is meant to catch the audience attention and maintain it long enough for them to appreciate the value of dogs in the military and all that they do as man's loyal best friend. The image captures the audience's attention, raises awareness about the sacrifice of others, and creates an emotional bond strong enough that the image remains in the audience's head long after they have scrolled past.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Nickel and Dimed Part 2: Evaluation
Barbara Ehrenreich's novel was one of the most eye-opening things I've ever read. After traveling to 3 different parts of America and working "unskilled" jobs for minimum wage or less, Barbara wrote her experiences down so that middle and upper class Americans could see the people we have been blind to for so long. In her Evaluation chapter, Ehrenreich writes of her "success" at preforming the jobs (in fact, this "success" was intentional mediocracy in order to preserve her strength during never-ending shifts on her feet) and ultimate failure at keeping herself housed and fed in each of the situations.
Since Ehrenreich no longer is using her personal experience to draw emotion from her audience, in her evaluation she uses logic and statistics to back her argument instead. She argues that the pricing of housing is too high because of "the market, stupid. When the rich and poor compete for housing on the open market, the poor don't stand a chance" (199). To validate her argument, Ehrenreich incorporates statistic after statistic, based on her own personal calculations and those of governmental evaluations of the low-wage working class, throughout her novel.
Another effective rhetorical device was Ehrenreich's incorporation of an analogy between low-wage workers and rats to demonstrate the damage to self-esteem that unskilled labor can cause. Barbara writes, "there is ample evidence that animals - rats and monkeys, for example - that are forced into a subordinate status within their social systems adapt their brain chemistry accordingly, becoming 'depressed' in humanlike ways....[humans] depend for our self-image on the humans immediately around us - to the point of altering our perceptions of the world so as to fit in with theirs" (211). This analogy provides further understanding for the audience, who can easily recall times when they've made, say, their dog feel ashamed by telling him he has been bad, and then relate this experience to their knowledge of humans. This draws sympathy from the audience, and effectively helps open their eyes to the plights of the poor, and perhaps even donate their time and energy to helping fix the problems described in the novel.
Overall, Ehrenreich's Evaluation chapter effectively helped draw conclusion to her novel and give her readers the "so what?" they needed.
Since Ehrenreich no longer is using her personal experience to draw emotion from her audience, in her evaluation she uses logic and statistics to back her argument instead. She argues that the pricing of housing is too high because of "the market, stupid. When the rich and poor compete for housing on the open market, the poor don't stand a chance" (199). To validate her argument, Ehrenreich incorporates statistic after statistic, based on her own personal calculations and those of governmental evaluations of the low-wage working class, throughout her novel.
Another effective rhetorical device was Ehrenreich's incorporation of an analogy between low-wage workers and rats to demonstrate the damage to self-esteem that unskilled labor can cause. Barbara writes, "there is ample evidence that animals - rats and monkeys, for example - that are forced into a subordinate status within their social systems adapt their brain chemistry accordingly, becoming 'depressed' in humanlike ways....[humans] depend for our self-image on the humans immediately around us - to the point of altering our perceptions of the world so as to fit in with theirs" (211). This analogy provides further understanding for the audience, who can easily recall times when they've made, say, their dog feel ashamed by telling him he has been bad, and then relate this experience to their knowledge of humans. This draws sympathy from the audience, and effectively helps open their eyes to the plights of the poor, and perhaps even donate their time and energy to helping fix the problems described in the novel.
Overall, Ehrenreich's Evaluation chapter effectively helped draw conclusion to her novel and give her readers the "so what?" they needed.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Tentative agreement reached to end NHL Lockout
Tim Panaccio, writer for Comcast Sportsnet Philly, was one of the first reporters to write about the NHL lockout that ended early this morning. His article focused on the details of the negotiations, such as the new 2013-14 salary cap and the "heroic" actions of Scot Beckenbaugh, who worked to bring the two sides together for compromise. The article is focused towards sports fans with a good bit of background knowledge on the NHL lockout, (some things seemed to go right over my head) but was generally informative enough for the general public to understand.
The most interesting rhetorical device used, in my opinion, was the delivery of the article—which consisted mainly of facts about the negotiation and a couple interviews. The article came with a video shown at the top of the page, so that Internet viewers don't have to feel bothered with reading the article if they just want the facts. This is a trend I have been noticing more and more often amongst news sources, and it seems to reflect the growing laziness and television-dependency of Americans. Furthermore, the article itself is broken down so that the most important information is given in the beginning of the article (an arrangement found in most articles) in order to fill in viewers with only a couple minutes to read. The article also consists of several sentences or sentence pairs that stand alone, rather than fully thought-out paragraphs, so that the overall effect feels more like a checklist than an article. Unfortunately, this style has also become increasingly popular, so as to make the article feel more progressive and easier on the eyes.
Overall, the article could have been written a little more thoughtfully, with a bit more analysis of the information provided, but since Panaccio's intent was to get the essential information about the end of the lockout to the public as fast as possible, his article was in fact very effective.
http://www.csnphilly.com/hockey-philadelphia-flyers/flyers-talk/Tentative-agreement-reached-to-end-NHL-L?blockID=820411&feedID=695
The most interesting rhetorical device used, in my opinion, was the delivery of the article—which consisted mainly of facts about the negotiation and a couple interviews. The article came with a video shown at the top of the page, so that Internet viewers don't have to feel bothered with reading the article if they just want the facts. This is a trend I have been noticing more and more often amongst news sources, and it seems to reflect the growing laziness and television-dependency of Americans. Furthermore, the article itself is broken down so that the most important information is given in the beginning of the article (an arrangement found in most articles) in order to fill in viewers with only a couple minutes to read. The article also consists of several sentences or sentence pairs that stand alone, rather than fully thought-out paragraphs, so that the overall effect feels more like a checklist than an article. Unfortunately, this style has also become increasingly popular, so as to make the article feel more progressive and easier on the eyes.
Overall, the article could have been written a little more thoughtfully, with a bit more analysis of the information provided, but since Panaccio's intent was to get the essential information about the end of the lockout to the public as fast as possible, his article was in fact very effective.
http://www.csnphilly.com/hockey-philadelphia-flyers/flyers-talk/Tentative-agreement-reached-to-end-NHL-L?blockID=820411&feedID=695
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)