Recently, the Ukrainian government has passed some dubious legislation that seems aimed at suppressing any recent civilian resistance. Some of the new legislation criminalizes all forms of "slander", which might include disagreement with the government, or a right to assemble. These new laws seem to reflect a growing Russian influence that the Ukranian government seems to have had. When citizens took to the streets to protest these new laws in Kiev, things turned violent and so far five people are dead. The surprising strength and ruthlessness of the Ukranian government seems to show that the "color revolutions", or more peaceful overturning of power, is in the past. So far, the United States has done little to address this issue, which may make the citizens want to use more violent means. The United States needs to reconsider its policies when it comes to dealing with governments like these.
The author uses various rhetorical devices in her argument. She uses the repetition of the word "they" when talking about the Ukranian government. Applebaum writes, "They have the cash to bribe a parliament’s worth of elected officials. They have the cynicism to revive the old Soviet technique of selective violence....They have also learned to manipulate media (as the Russians do) to multiply their money in Western financial institutions (as the Russians do), even to send threatening text messages. They have crafted a well-argued, well-funded, alternate narrative about Western economic decline and cultural decadence." This repetition acts as a sort of list to show how powerful the Ukranian government has become. Applebaum also uses humerous quotes to mock the lack of U.S response to this issue. Quoting a Canadian diplomat, she writes, "It's like watching a hockey game with only one team on the ice."
Overall, I think Applebaum achieved her purpose of attempting to show this problem and urging the United States to reconsider its policies in that area of the world. However, I think she underestimated the difficulty of the situation, especially the power of Russia. Her position, though well-intentioned, seems a bit naive.
Anne Applebaum is a Pulitzer-winning author and the director of the Global Transitions Program in the Legatum Institute in London.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
TOW # 16- Hiroshima by John Hersey
Hiroshima follows the lives of six people who survive the desolation of the atomic bomb on their city. The first character introduced is Reverand Mr.Kiyoshi Tanimoto, followed by Mrs. Hatsuyo Nakamaru, Dr. Matasakazu Fujii, Father Wilhelm Kleinsorge, Dr. Terufumi Sasaki, and Toshiko Sasaki. This section picks up to trace the lives of the people after the initial dropping of the bomb. Many of the major characters suffer minor injuries, but there are descriptions of those who have died and those who are gravely ill due to the fallout. It ends with a epilogue that includes a visit by the author many years later to see how each of the characters has been affected.
It seems clear that the author's purpose in writing Hiroshima was to inform the American public about the effects of the decision to drop the atomic bomb. This book, published in 1946 a year after the event occurred, sought to put faces on those who suffered at Hiroshima. There is a great appeal to pathos in this second section. For example, Hersey writes, "Mrs. Nakamura lay indoors with Myeko. They both continued sick, and though Mrs. Nakamaru vaguely sensed that their trouble was caused by the bomb, she was too poor to see a doctor and so never knew exactly what the matter was. " (pg 99). Hersey achieves his purpose by factually detailing the events that occurred and leaving out his own emotions in favor of the much more powerful emotions of his six characters. This is what ultimately affects the audience more.
Overall, I think that Hersey did achieve his purpose of objectively describing the lives of people affected by the dropping of the atomic bomb. He never once inserted his own opinion into the piece, he merely shared their stories. And that was a more powerful force than anything just one opinion could evoke.
John Hersey was a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist who wrote for Time Magazine and The New Yorker.
It seems clear that the author's purpose in writing Hiroshima was to inform the American public about the effects of the decision to drop the atomic bomb. This book, published in 1946 a year after the event occurred, sought to put faces on those who suffered at Hiroshima. There is a great appeal to pathos in this second section. For example, Hersey writes, "Mrs. Nakamura lay indoors with Myeko. They both continued sick, and though Mrs. Nakamaru vaguely sensed that their trouble was caused by the bomb, she was too poor to see a doctor and so never knew exactly what the matter was. " (pg 99). Hersey achieves his purpose by factually detailing the events that occurred and leaving out his own emotions in favor of the much more powerful emotions of his six characters. This is what ultimately affects the audience more.
Overall, I think that Hersey did achieve his purpose of objectively describing the lives of people affected by the dropping of the atomic bomb. He never once inserted his own opinion into the piece, he merely shared their stories. And that was a more powerful force than anything just one opinion could evoke.
John Hersey was a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist who wrote for Time Magazine and The New Yorker.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
TOW #15: "How Can We Help Men? By Helping Women" by Stephanie Coontz
In her article about the position of women in today's economy, Stephanie Coontz argues that rather than first looking to help women shatter the glass ceiling (the forces keeping women from entering the higher rungs of the corporate ladder despite their accomplishments) the nation should focus on "the sinking floor", which is the growing problem of both men and women struggling with poverty. She says that female-based models to address this will be more effective, rather than the former masculine-based model constructed around the idea of a male breadwinner. In the past, it was mostly women who have worked the lower-wage jobs, but now, an increasing number of men are facing the same problems. By helping reduce the wage gap through implementing a "livable" minimum wage, establishing a wider safety net, and prioritizing child care, both men and women can be helped.
Coontz appeals to logos and uses repetition to further her argument. She says, " 2009, one in every four American workers earned less than two-thirds of the national median hourly wage, the highest proportion of low-wage work in 19 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, according to the economist John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research." Coontz also establishes that the highest proportion of stay-at-home moms are married to men in the bottom 25% of wage earners. These statistics show that by helping the lower wage earners, men and women can both be helped. Towards the end she repeats the phrase "putting women first", which means that these policies are directly linked to putting women first but will greatly benefit men at the same time.
Coontz does not fully achieve her purpose because her "although" type thesis spends too much time on the "although" part and therefore slightly confuses her reader as to whether or not we should continue to pursue female-oriented policies even though women seem to be clearly doing better despite after the recession while men are still struggling. Her audience is probably policy-makers but also the general public.
Stephanie Coontz is an author, historian, and faculty member of Evergreen State College.
Coontz appeals to logos and uses repetition to further her argument. She says, " 2009, one in every four American workers earned less than two-thirds of the national median hourly wage, the highest proportion of low-wage work in 19 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, according to the economist John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research." Coontz also establishes that the highest proportion of stay-at-home moms are married to men in the bottom 25% of wage earners. These statistics show that by helping the lower wage earners, men and women can both be helped. Towards the end she repeats the phrase "putting women first", which means that these policies are directly linked to putting women first but will greatly benefit men at the same time.
Coontz does not fully achieve her purpose because her "although" type thesis spends too much time on the "although" part and therefore slightly confuses her reader as to whether or not we should continue to pursue female-oriented policies even though women seem to be clearly doing better despite after the recession while men are still struggling. Her audience is probably policy-makers but also the general public.
Stephanie Coontz is an author, historian, and faculty member of Evergreen State College.
Monday, December 23, 2013
TOW #14: Media-GoldieBlox
The advertisement draws mostly on an appeal to pathos. All three child actors are adorable, and the Rube Golberg is really fun and fascinating to watch. Also, the whole idea that the product will get more girls interested in the STEM fields is a very good angle to pitch, since there is still a gender gap in those fields. Parents will be more inclined to buy the product because they believe that GoldieBlox will make their daughter more interested in such areas.
This ad is certainly effective in addressing its target audience, parents with daughters and making parents think they are "empowering" their children. However, I also noticed that the product itself has very little to do with the Rube Goldberg. Even after the ad, I was not sure what was inside the GoldieBlox box, and this can come off as a little misleading. Furthermore, when inspected closer the product itself seems to be little more than some pink gizmos, not at all the same quality as Legos, or other similar toys that girls can enjoy just as much as boys. The song itself, chanting about female empowerment, just seems like a marketing ploy.
Although GoldieBlox plays up an effective angle, upon closer inspection the advertisement just seems more about the glamour than the actual product.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
TOW #13: "Raising Minimum Wage is a Bad Way to Help People" by Clive Crook
Author Clive Crook is arguing that Obama's push to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour is well-intentioned but unnecessary. Although the government has said that there is no "solid evidence" this change would cost jobs, Crook argues that it has no way of telling if it would either. Although the author acknowledges that by certain standards raising the wage to $9 isn't a big jump, and $7.25 is low even by international standards, he still believes that the best way to help those in poverty working minimum-wage jobs would be to lower tax rates for those people. This would keep costs for employers low and encourage them to hire more people.
The main device that Crook uses in his argument against minimum wage is a structure that allows for counterargument. Crook methodically takes each point the opposing side has to say and then rebuts it by pointing out logical flaws in the argument. For example, he says that many liberals and even some conservatives see all minimum wage earners as people under the poverty line, but this image is untrue. A majority of minimum-wage earners are actually students or come from households with additional income. Crook also uses rhetorical questions like, "what if you think employers are shrewdly paying unskilled workers less than their labor is worth? " to try to incorporate the perspective of his opponents before answering their questions as well.
The audience for this article would be people interested in economics, since it came from Bloomberg. The article achieved its purpose because it was convincing and also rebutted arguments from the other side. Clive Crook a senior editor of The Atlantic and graduated from the London School of Economics.
The main device that Crook uses in his argument against minimum wage is a structure that allows for counterargument. Crook methodically takes each point the opposing side has to say and then rebuts it by pointing out logical flaws in the argument. For example, he says that many liberals and even some conservatives see all minimum wage earners as people under the poverty line, but this image is untrue. A majority of minimum-wage earners are actually students or come from households with additional income. Crook also uses rhetorical questions like, "what if you think employers are shrewdly paying unskilled workers less than their labor is worth? " to try to incorporate the perspective of his opponents before answering their questions as well.
The audience for this article would be people interested in economics, since it came from Bloomberg. The article achieved its purpose because it was convincing and also rebutted arguments from the other side. Clive Crook a senior editor of The Atlantic and graduated from the London School of Economics.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
TOW #12: Hiroshima by John Hersey
Hiroshima follows the lives of six people who survive the desolation of the atomic bomb on their city. The story is divided into four parts, starting with the bomb being dropped. The first section sets the scene by describing the lives of each of the six people, alternating perspectives every few pages. The first character introduced is Reverand Mr.Kiyoshi Tanimoto, followed by Mrs. Hatsuyo Nakamaru, Dr. Matasakazu Fujii, Father Wilhelm Kleinsorge, Dr. Terufumi Sasaki, and Toshiko Sasaki. These people are very different, all with different personalities and professions. The one thing that binds them is that all of them were in the city of Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped. This section ends with each of them feeling the impact of the bomb.
Although I have not finished the story, it seems clear that the author's purpose in writing Hiroshima was to inform the American public about the effects of the decision to drop the atomic bomb. This book, published in 1946 a year after the event occurred, sought to put faces on those who suffered at Hiroshima. One rhetorical device used by Hersey is his distinct writing style, combining a journalistic professionalism with a narrative-like story-line. Hersey narrates the lives of each of the six survivors from an outside perspective, impartially but with detailed descriptions as well. Writes Hersey, "Mr. Tanimoto was a small man, quick to talk, laugh, and cry. He wore his black hair parted in the middle and rather long...he moved nervously and fast, but with a restraint which suggested that he was a cautious, thoughtful man" (5). This may be reflective of his desire to turn his writing into a news story, since it was originally published in The New Yorker, without losing a human appeal. Hersey also employs multiple perspectives from each of the characters. By doing so, he widens the scope of his story and makes it more comprehensive and detailed as to all the events that were occurring at the same time. Hersey achieves his purpose by factually detailing the events that occurred and leaving out his own emotions in favor of the much more powerful emotions of his six characters.
John Hersey was a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist who wrote for Time Magazine and The New Yorker.
Although I have not finished the story, it seems clear that the author's purpose in writing Hiroshima was to inform the American public about the effects of the decision to drop the atomic bomb. This book, published in 1946 a year after the event occurred, sought to put faces on those who suffered at Hiroshima. One rhetorical device used by Hersey is his distinct writing style, combining a journalistic professionalism with a narrative-like story-line. Hersey narrates the lives of each of the six survivors from an outside perspective, impartially but with detailed descriptions as well. Writes Hersey, "Mr. Tanimoto was a small man, quick to talk, laugh, and cry. He wore his black hair parted in the middle and rather long...he moved nervously and fast, but with a restraint which suggested that he was a cautious, thoughtful man" (5). This may be reflective of his desire to turn his writing into a news story, since it was originally published in The New Yorker, without losing a human appeal. Hersey also employs multiple perspectives from each of the characters. By doing so, he widens the scope of his story and makes it more comprehensive and detailed as to all the events that were occurring at the same time. Hersey achieves his purpose by factually detailing the events that occurred and leaving out his own emotions in favor of the much more powerful emotions of his six characters.
John Hersey was a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist who wrote for Time Magazine and The New Yorker.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
TOW #11:"There Is No Left Brain/Right Brain Divide" by Stephen Kosslyn and Wayne Miller
The commonly accepted idea that our brains are divide neatly into two sections, the left "logical and analytical" side and the right "intuitive and creative side" is actually a myth, according to Kosslyn and Miller. The truth is that the differences between left and right sides of the brain is actually very subtle, and the two sides mostly work together to process information. This article also addresses the root of the myth, an experiment done by the California Institute of Technology. The results of the experiment were skewed out of proportion by subsequent news sources, leading a majority of the public to believe in the idea of two very separate and different sections of the brain. Ultimately, although this theory is not true, the authors admit that exactly how the left and right side of the brain function separately and with each other is still vastly unknown. They do, however, hypothesis that a model of a "top-or-bottom" brain is better than the original.
The article mostly attempts to dispel the original theory through an appeal to logos, but the effort falls short. It describes the original experiment done by Caltech, but does not analyze it further or point out its flaws. It merely quotes one of the experimenters, Roger W. Sperry, cautioning the extrapolation of the data. Thus the reader is unsure why the left-right brain theory is baseless.
The new theory that the authors offer is also vague. Readers are told a "top or bottom" model would be better, but the article does not go into much detail about the differences between the top and bottom of the brain and how these differences influence behavior. It claims that "The characterizations of what each part does are based on years of solid research." But the article fails to show this research.
The audience of this article is probably the American public, given that this is Time magazine. But I feel the author's attempted too hard to put this concept into Layman's terms, which ended up cutting out a lot of crucial information regarding the two theories. Because of this, their argument that the current "Right vs. Left" theory should be changed into a "Top vs. Bottom" theory becomes muddled.
Kosslyn is a neuroscientist and former Harvard Professor of Psychology. Miller is a filmmaker and Providence Journal staff writer.
The article mostly attempts to dispel the original theory through an appeal to logos, but the effort falls short. It describes the original experiment done by Caltech, but does not analyze it further or point out its flaws. It merely quotes one of the experimenters, Roger W. Sperry, cautioning the extrapolation of the data. Thus the reader is unsure why the left-right brain theory is baseless.
The new theory that the authors offer is also vague. Readers are told a "top or bottom" model would be better, but the article does not go into much detail about the differences between the top and bottom of the brain and how these differences influence behavior. It claims that "The characterizations of what each part does are based on years of solid research." But the article fails to show this research.
The audience of this article is probably the American public, given that this is Time magazine. But I feel the author's attempted too hard to put this concept into Layman's terms, which ended up cutting out a lot of crucial information regarding the two theories. Because of this, their argument that the current "Right vs. Left" theory should be changed into a "Top vs. Bottom" theory becomes muddled.
Kosslyn is a neuroscientist and former Harvard Professor of Psychology. Miller is a filmmaker and Providence Journal staff writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)