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]."

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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