In Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots And Contemporary Suicide Bombers: War On Terror the author, Yuki Tanaka, shares the connections which drive suicide warfare. Tanaka first talks about the Japanese Kamikaze pilots during World War II. He gives much background information to the source and training of the kamikaze pilots. This effectively creates ethos early in the essay because the reader senses Tanaka’s knowledge of the fighter pilots. Tanaka also keeps an unbiased stance when he mentions the two differing views regarding the kamikaze pilots. This allows Tanaka’s article to be accepted by more people since he does not take the side of the military or the families of the dead pilots but just states the facts of WWII.
[Tanaka] also uses pathos in his article when he talks about the psychological themes that allowed for a kamikaze pilot to accept their mission. (Tanaka 296) This helps the reader connect on a cognitive level with the pilots. Most people can relate to the pilots’ views regarding sacrificing their lives for their family and friends. These themes also help the reader see that these fighter pilots were not unstable and wishing to die. They were people who needed support and comradery to see through a mission of this magnitude.
Tanaka starts to create logos when he talks about the contemporary suicide bombers. He starts off by talking about the differences between the kamikaze pilots and the suicide bombers: the introduction of civilian targets. Tanaka shows how the two wars, under different circumstances, can be the same. That is if Japan had the opportunity of civilian targets. This lets the reader easily accept the comparison when some of the major elements are different. Tanaka starts to form his purpose at this point in the article with the introduction of the United State’s military actions brought into the comparisons as well. This forces the reader to see the mentality of the current warfare and how it is no different than that of kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers. Once the reader makes that connection, Tanaka’s next lines are the most important when trying to break the reader’s current opinion of the US’s war practices. “This similarity is not surprising. This is because the indiscriminate bombing of civilians conducted by military forces is nothing but state violence against civilians, that is, it is state terrorism.” (Tanaka 298) Tanaka has successfully stripped the possible high opinion the reader may have of the United State’s actions and shown them to be on the same scale as the opposing side.
At the end of the article is where Tanaka states his purpose and challenges the reader to think. He brings it back to the beginning to show that the contemporary warfare is not new but has been adapted from its origins. Japan’s desperation to end the war created kamikaze pilots. US’s response was Hiroshima. Now the cycle is continuing and we are so willing to accept that our end is not the problem because it’s “legitimate military operations.” (Tanaka 300) In the end it is still the same and we need a change; terrorism is terrorism no matter if it’s civilian driven or military driven and Tanaka’s purpose is to challenge the reader to think of a more effective way to deal with warfare so needless people do not have to suffer. After reading the article and following Tanaka’s logical connections I am able to see the desperation and fear on both sides of the war. Finding a solution though is not easy. If you were to be the leader for change on the war against terrorism, what would your solution be?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Can Outsourcing Create a Safer World?
This week we read Thomas Friedman’s essay 30 Little Turtles. The essay’s purpose is to persuade the reader to look at the outsourcing of jobs from the perspective of the people who gain employment in less wealthy countries. Friedman talks about the “self-confidence, dignity and optimism” (Friedman 177) that comes from outsourcing low-wage jobs to other countries. The intended audience are people who are against outsourcing. [Friedman] says we should look at the positive aspects outsourcing has for less wealthy countries. (177) Outsourcing to Friedman means creating a safer world since it gives many less fortunate countries another option for employment and life.
Friedman tries to have the reader look through another lens at the situation and does so through the use of pathos. He creates the emotional appeal by talking about his personal experience reading a paragraph to a room full of young Indians. Friedman’s experience paints a picture of enthusiastic young adults eagerly trying to acquire the skills required to help the Canadian or US consumer. [Friedman] also says how the Indian workers will go as far as to change the way they talk to better serve their client base. (176) This gives me the sense that the Indian people are respectful of their jobs and strive to do the job to the best of their abilities.
Friedman’s use of ethos creeps up again in the essay when he interviews a few of the Indian workers. Their responses are very positive which leads the reader to think that the outsourced jobs are “dream jobs.” The quotes being used seemed very un-natural and westernized though. I became unnerved when reading the quotes because they made me feel as if the Indian people idealized our society of independence and wealth but could not obtain this by any other means than our outsourced jobs. These lines were meant to make the reader feel good about the help North America has given less fortunate countries.
In the last paragraph [Friedman] says that outsourcing is one way to make a safer world since countries like India and Pakistan can benefit from our low-wage, low-prestige jobs. (177) How will outsourcing create a safer world if people who already have jobs lose them to a competitor who is willing to work for far less than the cost of living in North America? This creates resentment and hatred; a gateway for violence. This essay is also a contradiction of its purpose because it is littered with stereotypes such as, “They say you people are really good at what you do. I am glad I reached an Indian.” Even though this is a positive response it still is very stereotypical. Not to mention Friedman’s example about the Palestinian men who “talked about having no hope, no jobs and no dignity, and...they were all ‘suicide bombers in waiting.’” (Friedman 177) So without the help from our outsourcing, apparently, all Indian and Palestinian people have nothing to look forward to except suicide bombing? These two examples display Friedman's lack of sensitivity towards the people he is writing about. Making broad statements about the young Palestinean men is just reinforcing stereotypes which also foster hatred and violence.
I hear the point that Friedman is trying to convey and see the means in which he delivers it. Where the problem lies for me is in Friedman’s logic for creating a safer world. I may be wrong but I am under the impression that many of the suicide bombers do so for religious purposes. These are very radical religious people who commit these acts. If this is the case how will an outsourced job deter a radical’s religious standpoint? Also, what about our immediate safety if our low-wage, low-prestige jobs are outsourced and only the medium to high wage and prestige jobs remain? Would that not just create a larger gap between the rich and poor? Areas where physical safety is in constant jeopardy are usually linked with poverty. By outsourcing jobs overseas we are raising the unemployment rate which simultaniously increases the poverty rate. Since unsafe demographics can be linked to poverty, outsourcing directly undermines the thought of a safer world. And with the occurance of poverty linked violence far outweighing suicide bombing percentage wise wouldn't it seem more productive to keep the jobs in North America so poverty stricken people have a hope becoming secure and stable? Maybe we should look at it this way; North America can not effectively help other areas of the world unless we can look within and strengthen ourselves first.
Friedman tries to have the reader look through another lens at the situation and does so through the use of pathos. He creates the emotional appeal by talking about his personal experience reading a paragraph to a room full of young Indians. Friedman’s experience paints a picture of enthusiastic young adults eagerly trying to acquire the skills required to help the Canadian or US consumer. [Friedman] also says how the Indian workers will go as far as to change the way they talk to better serve their client base. (176) This gives me the sense that the Indian people are respectful of their jobs and strive to do the job to the best of their abilities.
Friedman’s use of ethos creeps up again in the essay when he interviews a few of the Indian workers. Their responses are very positive which leads the reader to think that the outsourced jobs are “dream jobs.” The quotes being used seemed very un-natural and westernized though. I became unnerved when reading the quotes because they made me feel as if the Indian people idealized our society of independence and wealth but could not obtain this by any other means than our outsourced jobs. These lines were meant to make the reader feel good about the help North America has given less fortunate countries.
In the last paragraph [Friedman] says that outsourcing is one way to make a safer world since countries like India and Pakistan can benefit from our low-wage, low-prestige jobs. (177) How will outsourcing create a safer world if people who already have jobs lose them to a competitor who is willing to work for far less than the cost of living in North America? This creates resentment and hatred; a gateway for violence. This essay is also a contradiction of its purpose because it is littered with stereotypes such as, “They say you people are really good at what you do. I am glad I reached an Indian.” Even though this is a positive response it still is very stereotypical. Not to mention Friedman’s example about the Palestinian men who “talked about having no hope, no jobs and no dignity, and...they were all ‘suicide bombers in waiting.’” (Friedman 177) So without the help from our outsourcing, apparently, all Indian and Palestinian people have nothing to look forward to except suicide bombing? These two examples display Friedman's lack of sensitivity towards the people he is writing about. Making broad statements about the young Palestinean men is just reinforcing stereotypes which also foster hatred and violence.
I hear the point that Friedman is trying to convey and see the means in which he delivers it. Where the problem lies for me is in Friedman’s logic for creating a safer world. I may be wrong but I am under the impression that many of the suicide bombers do so for religious purposes. These are very radical religious people who commit these acts. If this is the case how will an outsourced job deter a radical’s religious standpoint? Also, what about our immediate safety if our low-wage, low-prestige jobs are outsourced and only the medium to high wage and prestige jobs remain? Would that not just create a larger gap between the rich and poor? Areas where physical safety is in constant jeopardy are usually linked with poverty. By outsourcing jobs overseas we are raising the unemployment rate which simultaniously increases the poverty rate. Since unsafe demographics can be linked to poverty, outsourcing directly undermines the thought of a safer world. And with the occurance of poverty linked violence far outweighing suicide bombing percentage wise wouldn't it seem more productive to keep the jobs in North America so poverty stricken people have a hope becoming secure and stable? Maybe we should look at it this way; North America can not effectively help other areas of the world unless we can look within and strengthen ourselves first.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A Truly Remarkable Man
On February 6, 2006 Jim Holt wrote a review in the New Yorker on David Leavitt’s biography The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turning and the Invention of the Computer called Code-Breaker. In this article Holt expresses his opinions of Leavitt‘s biography. This article is intended for an audience who has read or is interested in reading Leavitt’s book. The purpose of this article is to critique Leavitt’s writing as well as opinions while keeping the reader‘s attention.
Holt’s opening paragraph mentions suicide, a conviction of gross indecency, a turning point in World War I and the framework for the modern computer. It sounds more like a movie or novel rather than a biography. It instantly hooked my attention and I wanted to read on. I know the name Alan Turing through my studies a few years ago in Computer Sciences. I only knew of his ideas and breakthroughs but nothing of his personal life. Reading the areas of Turing’s personal life which were explored in the article hooked me and had me eagerly reading further.
Holt has a wealth of knowledge with regards to Alan Turing’s life. It was delivered in a chronological way which effectively created ethos. Holt’s review was incorporated in Turing’s life timeline which allowed him to not only create ethos but also pick out the parts of Leavitt’s work that he does not agree with such as Leavitt’s “rather overdeveloped ability to detect psychosexual significance.” (Holt 334) Even though I have not read Leavitt’s biography I get the distinct impression that Leavitt focuses much of his writing on Turing’s sexuality. By focusing on Turing’s sexuality it shows him as a victim during a time when homosexual relationships were illegal in Britain. Holt’s objection to Leavitt’s focus on Turing’s sexual orientation removes the thoughts of Turing being a victim and replaces them with thoughts of Turing being a hero. This change in mindset definitely altered the way I received the information of Turing’s life. I am now able to fully understand why many people believe that Turing’s death was not suicide.
Where Holt further establishes ethos is when he mentions a positive aspect to the biography such as crediting Leavitt for developing Alan Turing “the man.” This shows that Holt is genuinely reading the biography and commenting on the piece rather than personalizing it towards the author. Another example is when Holt noticed specific areas where Leavitt’s logic and understanding of the science were incorrect but did recognize Leavitt’s attempts to research the topic. This instantly placed Holt higher on the credibility scale than Leavitt since Holt seems to have a clearer understanding of the science.
At the end of the article Holt makes acknowledgement to the differing theory camps surrounding Turing’s death. Holt agrees and notes that there is no evidence to contradict suicide as the cause of Turing’s death but does say “this note of macabre came doesn’t suit a man who eschewed all forms of egoistic fuss as he solved the most important logic problem of his time, saved countless lives by defeating a Nazi code, conceived the computer and rethought how mind arises from matter.” Clearly Holt does not believe that Alan Turing committed suicide and that is the last thought left with the reader. Since Holt established Turing as a hero rather than a victim earlier in the article the audience is able to accept his deductive logic. This is effective because not only did Holt critique Leavitt’s biography and share the life of Alan Turing but Holt also left the audience questioning whether there is a mystery surrounding Turing’s death.
Alan Turing was an amazing man. He stood up for what he believed was right knowing full well what the consequences could be. He is a man to be respected for just that fact alone. Turing chose to undergo chemical castration (instead of jail time) for being convicted of "gross indecency" trying to bring to justice a man who stole his personal property thinking that Turing would not speak up because he was homosexual. This conviction stripped Turing of his security clearance and ended his ability to perform crypotlogical work. My question is: In our world today how many people do you think would stand up for what they believe is right knowing full well that it could potentially ruin their lives?
Holt’s opening paragraph mentions suicide, a conviction of gross indecency, a turning point in World War I and the framework for the modern computer. It sounds more like a movie or novel rather than a biography. It instantly hooked my attention and I wanted to read on. I know the name Alan Turing through my studies a few years ago in Computer Sciences. I only knew of his ideas and breakthroughs but nothing of his personal life. Reading the areas of Turing’s personal life which were explored in the article hooked me and had me eagerly reading further.
Holt has a wealth of knowledge with regards to Alan Turing’s life. It was delivered in a chronological way which effectively created ethos. Holt’s review was incorporated in Turing’s life timeline which allowed him to not only create ethos but also pick out the parts of Leavitt’s work that he does not agree with such as Leavitt’s “rather overdeveloped ability to detect psychosexual significance.” (Holt 334) Even though I have not read Leavitt’s biography I get the distinct impression that Leavitt focuses much of his writing on Turing’s sexuality. By focusing on Turing’s sexuality it shows him as a victim during a time when homosexual relationships were illegal in Britain. Holt’s objection to Leavitt’s focus on Turing’s sexual orientation removes the thoughts of Turing being a victim and replaces them with thoughts of Turing being a hero. This change in mindset definitely altered the way I received the information of Turing’s life. I am now able to fully understand why many people believe that Turing’s death was not suicide.
Where Holt further establishes ethos is when he mentions a positive aspect to the biography such as crediting Leavitt for developing Alan Turing “the man.” This shows that Holt is genuinely reading the biography and commenting on the piece rather than personalizing it towards the author. Another example is when Holt noticed specific areas where Leavitt’s logic and understanding of the science were incorrect but did recognize Leavitt’s attempts to research the topic. This instantly placed Holt higher on the credibility scale than Leavitt since Holt seems to have a clearer understanding of the science.
At the end of the article Holt makes acknowledgement to the differing theory camps surrounding Turing’s death. Holt agrees and notes that there is no evidence to contradict suicide as the cause of Turing’s death but does say “this note of macabre came doesn’t suit a man who eschewed all forms of egoistic fuss as he solved the most important logic problem of his time, saved countless lives by defeating a Nazi code, conceived the computer and rethought how mind arises from matter.” Clearly Holt does not believe that Alan Turing committed suicide and that is the last thought left with the reader. Since Holt established Turing as a hero rather than a victim earlier in the article the audience is able to accept his deductive logic. This is effective because not only did Holt critique Leavitt’s biography and share the life of Alan Turing but Holt also left the audience questioning whether there is a mystery surrounding Turing’s death.
Alan Turing was an amazing man. He stood up for what he believed was right knowing full well what the consequences could be. He is a man to be respected for just that fact alone. Turing chose to undergo chemical castration (instead of jail time) for being convicted of "gross indecency" trying to bring to justice a man who stole his personal property thinking that Turing would not speak up because he was homosexual. This conviction stripped Turing of his security clearance and ended his ability to perform crypotlogical work. My question is: In our world today how many people do you think would stand up for what they believe is right knowing full well that it could potentially ruin their lives?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Positive Change Spurs from the Understanding of a Whole
In Gary Kleck’s essay There Are No Lessons to be Learned from Littleton Kleck talks about our focus on mass murders and our need to find reasons for and preventative measures to stop this kind of horror from occurring again when there is most likely no way to prevent it. Kleck also talks about the effects excessive media coverage of extreme violence and how it clouds the statistics which show violence is, as a whole, on the decrease. Kleck goes on to talk about how laws and preventative measures are put into place after mass-killings when they make up such a small percentage of the homicides yearly. He says that in most cases looking for preventative measures will most likely not be effective in decreasing the majority of homicides that occur each year.
I believe that Kleck’s intended audience is anyone who feels that these reforms and changes need to occur because violence is on the rise. The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the fact it is not productive or relevant to focus preventative measures on unusual horrific acts of violence because these acts are very rare compared to the “ordinary violence.” With this purpose in mind, Kleck forces the public to think and use a critical eye when filtering through the information in the aftermath. This essay accomplished this task well because Kleck was able to first create ethos, then address the audience’s need to make a judgement, and thirdly rationalize the misuse of politicians and advocate groups inductive reasoning to exploit the situation for gains.
Looking into Kleck’s history surrounding Criminology, it’s easy to see that the man is very educated and knowledgeable when it comes to the Criminal Justice field. Even before looking into his background, Kelck’s writing conveys knowledge in the way he easily sets up a timeline regarding mass US murders. Kelck also identifies all the debates regarding reasons for these killings to happen which shows that he has an understanding of the whole situation instead of just his own opinion.
Kleck had one sentence that instantly created ethos for me. I feel Kleck grabbed the audience when he said, “The purpose of this essay is not to sort out which diagnoses are correct. Many of them are plausible, and some are probably even accurate…” (Ackley, 211) This is a great use of pathos because Kleck did not debunk anyone’s opinion on the reasoning for the massacre; he simply asked the reader to open their mind past that reason and look at the situation as part of a whole with regards to violence in general because focusing on the one horrific incident does not take into account the big picture problems that are occurring 99 percent of the time.
The last part of the essay really solidified Kleck’s stance on judgments and preventative measures when he showed the flaws in the inductive reasoning used to create gun controls. All the changes that were made were completely irrelevant to the situations at hand but the government and anti-gun activists were able to exploit the massacre and emotions regarding it to make strategic gains. Kleck uses the example of the proposal to restrict sales at gun shows. Kleck points out that most often the guns used in mass-killings are obtained through theft and not sale. He says, “Under both Colorado and federal law, she would have been eligible to purchase the same guns from any gun store.” This really shows how putting restrictions on gun shows is irrelevant to the murders because it was not a trait from all the massacres listed and just happened to be her choice of purchase. It was not the only place to legally acquire a firearm.
In the end, people need to take these incidents in stride. Easier said than done I know but when people are able to grasp the whole picture instead of just a horrific snapshot, better decisions can be made to help cut down on gun violence.
Canada had a mass killing in 1989 at École Polytechnique. It did spur a change in gun control in Canada but for a whole. The incident lead to tighter gun control laws which were credited for minimizing casualties at another school shooting. Canada passed Bill C-68 also known as the Fire Arms Act. It encompassed gun training, applicant screening, new rules for gun and ammunition storage and registration of all long guns which are rifles and shotguns. This act allows the police to seize guns from homes where serious domestic disputes have been reported which is where most crimes of passion spawn from.
This act also incorporated a screening process which restricts a person who has a criminal record for any violent crime within the previous five years, been treated for a mental disorder involving violence, and a history of any other violent behaviour from obtaining a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). It is also mandatory for a photograph of the applicant to be taken and they are to provide two references. There is a mandatory 28 day waiting period to obtain a FAC, an extended application form to collect more background information and the applicant must show the ability to safely handle a firearm. As you can see this change did not just make a solution for the Montreal Massacre but also incorporated elements to minimize “ordinary” gun violence. I believe this is what Kleck wants the American people to consider instead of just a solution to put a horrific incident to rest.
This is a heated topic and I would love to hear some opinions. Now that the Conservative government is adamant about the repeal of the long-gun registry which has been credited with success against gun violence, what side of the fence do you sit on and why?
I believe that Kleck’s intended audience is anyone who feels that these reforms and changes need to occur because violence is on the rise. The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the fact it is not productive or relevant to focus preventative measures on unusual horrific acts of violence because these acts are very rare compared to the “ordinary violence.” With this purpose in mind, Kleck forces the public to think and use a critical eye when filtering through the information in the aftermath. This essay accomplished this task well because Kleck was able to first create ethos, then address the audience’s need to make a judgement, and thirdly rationalize the misuse of politicians and advocate groups inductive reasoning to exploit the situation for gains.
Looking into Kleck’s history surrounding Criminology, it’s easy to see that the man is very educated and knowledgeable when it comes to the Criminal Justice field. Even before looking into his background, Kelck’s writing conveys knowledge in the way he easily sets up a timeline regarding mass US murders. Kelck also identifies all the debates regarding reasons for these killings to happen which shows that he has an understanding of the whole situation instead of just his own opinion.
Kleck had one sentence that instantly created ethos for me. I feel Kleck grabbed the audience when he said, “The purpose of this essay is not to sort out which diagnoses are correct. Many of them are plausible, and some are probably even accurate…” (Ackley, 211) This is a great use of pathos because Kleck did not debunk anyone’s opinion on the reasoning for the massacre; he simply asked the reader to open their mind past that reason and look at the situation as part of a whole with regards to violence in general because focusing on the one horrific incident does not take into account the big picture problems that are occurring 99 percent of the time.
The last part of the essay really solidified Kleck’s stance on judgments and preventative measures when he showed the flaws in the inductive reasoning used to create gun controls. All the changes that were made were completely irrelevant to the situations at hand but the government and anti-gun activists were able to exploit the massacre and emotions regarding it to make strategic gains. Kleck uses the example of the proposal to restrict sales at gun shows. Kleck points out that most often the guns used in mass-killings are obtained through theft and not sale. He says, “Under both Colorado and federal law, she would have been eligible to purchase the same guns from any gun store.” This really shows how putting restrictions on gun shows is irrelevant to the murders because it was not a trait from all the massacres listed and just happened to be her choice of purchase. It was not the only place to legally acquire a firearm.
In the end, people need to take these incidents in stride. Easier said than done I know but when people are able to grasp the whole picture instead of just a horrific snapshot, better decisions can be made to help cut down on gun violence.
Canada had a mass killing in 1989 at École Polytechnique. It did spur a change in gun control in Canada but for a whole. The incident lead to tighter gun control laws which were credited for minimizing casualties at another school shooting. Canada passed Bill C-68 also known as the Fire Arms Act. It encompassed gun training, applicant screening, new rules for gun and ammunition storage and registration of all long guns which are rifles and shotguns. This act allows the police to seize guns from homes where serious domestic disputes have been reported which is where most crimes of passion spawn from.
This act also incorporated a screening process which restricts a person who has a criminal record for any violent crime within the previous five years, been treated for a mental disorder involving violence, and a history of any other violent behaviour from obtaining a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). It is also mandatory for a photograph of the applicant to be taken and they are to provide two references. There is a mandatory 28 day waiting period to obtain a FAC, an extended application form to collect more background information and the applicant must show the ability to safely handle a firearm. As you can see this change did not just make a solution for the Montreal Massacre but also incorporated elements to minimize “ordinary” gun violence. I believe this is what Kleck wants the American people to consider instead of just a solution to put a horrific incident to rest.
This is a heated topic and I would love to hear some opinions. Now that the Conservative government is adamant about the repeal of the long-gun registry which has been credited with success against gun violence, what side of the fence do you sit on and why?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
I respectfully contradict
This week I read an article named Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence written by Sissela Bok. In this article Bok tries to raise awareness on the correlation between media violence and real violence. I believe that Bok’s audience is anyone who is a parent and/or middle age society or older since she is making references to youth violence, John Grisham and Oliver Stone. Youth violence is becoming mainstream news and parents are beginning to worry more about their children’s safety. Grisham and Stone are known well to an older generation who can appreciate the works they created.
I believe that Bok is trying to persuade the reader to rethink the television currently aired and take a stand to have rules placed on media violence. I do feel that the execution was flawed. I found myself contradicting Bok more than agreeing with her. Bok’s statistics were contradictory and left much room for the reader to form doubt. She notes that since television was created, the rate of violence has risen in the 1990’s but then contradicts her point by saying that actual violence has now decreased even though no action has been made to curb media violence. This contradicts the point that media violence is directly effecting violence.
Bok also calls the reader to take a stand and asks the reader to think of other areas that have been censored such as smoking and drunk driving. In my opinion, this is a really bad comparison because there is concrete evidence that links smoking to cancer and drunk driving to car accidents but there is no direct link regarding media violence and real violence. Not to mention that smoking and drinking are addictive substances which causes death and glamorizing them in the media destroys the attempts to remove it from society. Watching media violence is not addictive nor does it cause anybody physical harm or impairment. The example of the couple that copycatted Natural Born Killers had underlying issues that contributed to their choices to reenact the movie. By using such poor examples Bok did not effectively convey logos. Her use of inductive logic was flawed since she was comparing apples to sailboats.
With Bok’s inconsistencies regarding her examples and comparisons she was not able to effectively create ethos either. This is because she could not establish credibility. Bok also makes the comment, “No reputable scholar accepts the view expressed by 21 percent of the American public in 1995, blaming television more than any other factor for teenage violence.” (Bok, 87) This sentence completely undermines the beliefs of the average American.
I think that Bok has a great point to make about media violence and the need for it to be monitored but not completely restricted. I believe that it’s the job both of the television networks to gear their programs to the audiences that watch it and also the parent’s or caregiver’s responsibility to monitor what their children are watching. This point was only brought up in passing and was not retouched. I found myself shaking my head when I was done reading the article because, as a mother of two boys, I question other parents or care providers who do not take the time to educate children about what it is they are watching. I can easily compare it to guns. A child who is never taught the impact of guns or the dangers associated with them is more likely to pick one up and hurt either themselves or someone else badly. A child who has grown up learning about guns, the proper use for them and the harm they can cause have a respect for them and are less likely to pick one up and hurt anyone. Children are impressionable and without the proper guidance when it comes to things such as media violence, how are they to know any better?
Do you believe there is a need to remove violence from our media?
I believe that Bok is trying to persuade the reader to rethink the television currently aired and take a stand to have rules placed on media violence. I do feel that the execution was flawed. I found myself contradicting Bok more than agreeing with her. Bok’s statistics were contradictory and left much room for the reader to form doubt. She notes that since television was created, the rate of violence has risen in the 1990’s but then contradicts her point by saying that actual violence has now decreased even though no action has been made to curb media violence. This contradicts the point that media violence is directly effecting violence.
Bok also calls the reader to take a stand and asks the reader to think of other areas that have been censored such as smoking and drunk driving. In my opinion, this is a really bad comparison because there is concrete evidence that links smoking to cancer and drunk driving to car accidents but there is no direct link regarding media violence and real violence. Not to mention that smoking and drinking are addictive substances which causes death and glamorizing them in the media destroys the attempts to remove it from society. Watching media violence is not addictive nor does it cause anybody physical harm or impairment. The example of the couple that copycatted Natural Born Killers had underlying issues that contributed to their choices to reenact the movie. By using such poor examples Bok did not effectively convey logos. Her use of inductive logic was flawed since she was comparing apples to sailboats.
With Bok’s inconsistencies regarding her examples and comparisons she was not able to effectively create ethos either. This is because she could not establish credibility. Bok also makes the comment, “No reputable scholar accepts the view expressed by 21 percent of the American public in 1995, blaming television more than any other factor for teenage violence.” (Bok, 87) This sentence completely undermines the beliefs of the average American.
I think that Bok has a great point to make about media violence and the need for it to be monitored but not completely restricted. I believe that it’s the job both of the television networks to gear their programs to the audiences that watch it and also the parent’s or caregiver’s responsibility to monitor what their children are watching. This point was only brought up in passing and was not retouched. I found myself shaking my head when I was done reading the article because, as a mother of two boys, I question other parents or care providers who do not take the time to educate children about what it is they are watching. I can easily compare it to guns. A child who is never taught the impact of guns or the dangers associated with them is more likely to pick one up and hurt either themselves or someone else badly. A child who has grown up learning about guns, the proper use for them and the harm they can cause have a respect for them and are less likely to pick one up and hurt anyone. Children are impressionable and without the proper guidance when it comes to things such as media violence, how are they to know any better?
Do you believe there is a need to remove violence from our media?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Time Has Come For Everyone to Lend A Much Needed Hand
In Stephen Lewis’ lecture Pandemic: My Country is on It’s Knees, Lewis paints a gruesome picture of the decline of a once newly freed and opportunistic Africa to what is the present: a continent that is being consumed by HIV/AIDS.
I believe that the purpose of this essay is to make the audience really think about Africa and their state of emergency and spur a change which will be beneficial to the people who are in dire need.
When I read Lewis’ lectures I cried. I was able to project his experiences into my own life. I have two children and the thought of having to endure a lifetime of pain, loss and suffering while the developed world flourishes would be devastating to say the least. I think that with the reaction it created for me Lewis’ intended audience is income earners who have families. His lectures have many references to the connections made, friendships created and family changes with regards to children that it seems like the logical choice to make since families incorporate all these aspects. From my personal reaction, I think Lewis executed his purpose effectively by using rhetorical appeal.
When starting to read this essay, it was hard to focus. I found the words to be very descriptive for something I had a hard time envisioning. It felt like I was reading a text book rather than someone’s personal history. As Lewis made his way into Africa, the language stayed descriptive but it seemed to fit better since he was describing, with great detail, each circumstance. I was able to visualize myself there with him.
I think that Lewis described his personal history and experiences so descriptively and honestly to create an ethical appeal. First off Lewis discloses information about his personal upbringings, family values and choices he made in his early life which shows that he is headstrong. Secondly Lewis describes why he is interested in Africa. “Although the conference lasted only seven days, I stayed in Africa for a year; I was crazy about the continent from the moment I set foot on its soil-the music, the energy, the kindness, the generosity, the camaraderie, the purposefulness of everything… the sense of possibility was everywhere.” By explaining why he is interested in Africa, Lewis comes across as sincere without having an ulterior motive. Thirdly Lewis discloses his personal experiences when immersed in the African countries which shows he made personal connections and a life there. And finally Lewis’ timelines are easy to follow since they are sequential. All these examples build credibility for Lewis. He opens himself up to the audience fully in an easy to follow manner.
I also believe that Lewis’ experiences were descriptively written to create not only an ethical appeal but also an emotional appeal. Facts are facts and remove the faces from the African people. By re-telling his experiences Lewis is able to bring the reader into his memory which causes the reader to then evaluate their beliefs, thoughts and emotions. The one interview that made me breakdown was Lewis hearing Agnes‘ story. “There was one woman, seventy-three years old, sitting slightly apart from the rest , who refused to speak…And then Agnes spoke. She took mo more than a couple of minutes…She had buried all five of her adult children between 2001 and 2003 -all five- and was left with four orphan grandchildren. That was it. She wept… I learned as I left that every one of her four grandchildren is HIV-positive. How much can one grandmother endure?” Sitting here on my computer, I am teary eyed and wrenched with the pain that one woman has been through. What a reality painted right in front of the reader! Lewis also used a comparison between the western societies and the African societies. “All of us who live in privileged western societies experience death from time to time, but in much of southern Africa that’s all people know. Their lives consist of attending funerals; if I may mangle a phrase, they go on a graveyard crawl every weekend.” I believe this comparison to be effective since we do take many things for granted and these lines bring it down to a very current level that almost everyone can relate to.
At the end of the lectures Lewis uses inductive reasoning to formulate an argument for help. Lewis focuses on the progress organizations like UNICEF, Umoyo and Doctor’s Without Borders have made in helping people in Africa live with HIV/AIDS and helping the people recognize that HIV/AIDS incorporates everyone, not just women. These specific examples and organizations are having a positive impact everywhere they go. I believe Lewis feels that these organizations are the forwarding steps bringing Africa back to the continent Lewis remembers and loves.
Also at the end of his lectures, after portraying a very gruesome and realistic picture of many countries in Africa, Lewis gives hope. “It’s hard not to be in a near stupor of anger. And yet I’m sustained, as so many Africans are, by the memories of what the continent used to be, and the conviction that the present will one day reunite with the best of the past.” Just when the problem seems too far out of control to handle and too depressing to think about, the resiliency conveyed left me with the drive to help. All of the examples provided in my analysis show how Stephen Lewis wrote a fantastic rhetorical appeal which really made me think with a different perspective and want to make changes to help stop this pandemic.
So my question is how close to home does a pandemic of this magnitude have to hit before we take notice and help? Also, why is it once the media stops covering stories such as these, do we just forget about the people who desperately need our help?
I believe that the purpose of this essay is to make the audience really think about Africa and their state of emergency and spur a change which will be beneficial to the people who are in dire need.
When I read Lewis’ lectures I cried. I was able to project his experiences into my own life. I have two children and the thought of having to endure a lifetime of pain, loss and suffering while the developed world flourishes would be devastating to say the least. I think that with the reaction it created for me Lewis’ intended audience is income earners who have families. His lectures have many references to the connections made, friendships created and family changes with regards to children that it seems like the logical choice to make since families incorporate all these aspects. From my personal reaction, I think Lewis executed his purpose effectively by using rhetorical appeal.
When starting to read this essay, it was hard to focus. I found the words to be very descriptive for something I had a hard time envisioning. It felt like I was reading a text book rather than someone’s personal history. As Lewis made his way into Africa, the language stayed descriptive but it seemed to fit better since he was describing, with great detail, each circumstance. I was able to visualize myself there with him.
I think that Lewis described his personal history and experiences so descriptively and honestly to create an ethical appeal. First off Lewis discloses information about his personal upbringings, family values and choices he made in his early life which shows that he is headstrong. Secondly Lewis describes why he is interested in Africa. “Although the conference lasted only seven days, I stayed in Africa for a year; I was crazy about the continent from the moment I set foot on its soil-the music, the energy, the kindness, the generosity, the camaraderie, the purposefulness of everything… the sense of possibility was everywhere.” By explaining why he is interested in Africa, Lewis comes across as sincere without having an ulterior motive. Thirdly Lewis discloses his personal experiences when immersed in the African countries which shows he made personal connections and a life there. And finally Lewis’ timelines are easy to follow since they are sequential. All these examples build credibility for Lewis. He opens himself up to the audience fully in an easy to follow manner.
I also believe that Lewis’ experiences were descriptively written to create not only an ethical appeal but also an emotional appeal. Facts are facts and remove the faces from the African people. By re-telling his experiences Lewis is able to bring the reader into his memory which causes the reader to then evaluate their beliefs, thoughts and emotions. The one interview that made me breakdown was Lewis hearing Agnes‘ story. “There was one woman, seventy-three years old, sitting slightly apart from the rest , who refused to speak…And then Agnes spoke. She took mo more than a couple of minutes…She had buried all five of her adult children between 2001 and 2003 -all five- and was left with four orphan grandchildren. That was it. She wept… I learned as I left that every one of her four grandchildren is HIV-positive. How much can one grandmother endure?” Sitting here on my computer, I am teary eyed and wrenched with the pain that one woman has been through. What a reality painted right in front of the reader! Lewis also used a comparison between the western societies and the African societies. “All of us who live in privileged western societies experience death from time to time, but in much of southern Africa that’s all people know. Their lives consist of attending funerals; if I may mangle a phrase, they go on a graveyard crawl every weekend.” I believe this comparison to be effective since we do take many things for granted and these lines bring it down to a very current level that almost everyone can relate to.
At the end of the lectures Lewis uses inductive reasoning to formulate an argument for help. Lewis focuses on the progress organizations like UNICEF, Umoyo and Doctor’s Without Borders have made in helping people in Africa live with HIV/AIDS and helping the people recognize that HIV/AIDS incorporates everyone, not just women. These specific examples and organizations are having a positive impact everywhere they go. I believe Lewis feels that these organizations are the forwarding steps bringing Africa back to the continent Lewis remembers and loves.
Also at the end of his lectures, after portraying a very gruesome and realistic picture of many countries in Africa, Lewis gives hope. “It’s hard not to be in a near stupor of anger. And yet I’m sustained, as so many Africans are, by the memories of what the continent used to be, and the conviction that the present will one day reunite with the best of the past.” Just when the problem seems too far out of control to handle and too depressing to think about, the resiliency conveyed left me with the drive to help. All of the examples provided in my analysis show how Stephen Lewis wrote a fantastic rhetorical appeal which really made me think with a different perspective and want to make changes to help stop this pandemic.
So my question is how close to home does a pandemic of this magnitude have to hit before we take notice and help? Also, why is it once the media stops covering stories such as these, do we just forget about the people who desperately need our help?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
O'er the Land of the Free, and the Home of All That is Fair?
After reading Margaret Atwood’s “Letter to America” I felt as if I could not relate to it fully since it conveyed a life from the forties and fifties which is far before my time. I did not read the Disney comic books, listen to radio shows, or watch any of the movies she mentioned. To be honest, I have only heard of one out of the three movies. I was raised in a time where the works Atwood describes are part of study material assigned throughout grade school. I am clearly not her intended audience when it comes to this letter. I can debate that the letter was written for the older audience who grew up during these times and I can also debate that the letter was written for the younger generation. I believe though, that this letter was intended for an older audience: an aging society who grew up in the United States during this era which was full of economic growth. The average American, at this time, held white-collar jobs and were able to afford education and luxuries such as books and movies. This is who Atwood is catering to.
Now that I know who Atwood was writing for, I wanted to find out why she wrote it. This letter was first published on March 28, 2003 in the Globe and Mail newspaper. This is after the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers, after the shock the whole world endured from this blow and after the United States sent troops over to Afghanistan. This letter was written at a time when the “War on Terrorism” started to show it’s true colors; many innocent American soldiers were dying and quickly. I say this because the American people were so fueled by hurt, loss, anger, humiliation and revenge that they made a decision based upon those feelings and when the war did not end as quickly as anticipated those emotions calmed which lead many American’s to question whether this was the right decision; is the loss worth the gains? Atwood’s purpose, to me, is to have Americans start to focus positively on themselves instead of negatively about the surrounding world. She says, “Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn‘t use to be easily frightened.” I think she is challenging the American people to change their thought paths, put their money and efforts into supporting their own people to do greatness instead of dumping it into security, national defense and war.
Atwood’s “Letter to America” fuelled a lot of controversy and left room for others to refute her thoughts. To me, I think that this letter could be more effective if she didn’t just focus on childhood memories but focused on true life events during the time. There was war - World War 2 ended in 1945 and The Cold War started in 1953. This is all during the era she is mentioning about as being a “better time.” I find it unfair for Atwood to write about only the good aspects of the era and fail to mention that there was war. I wonder if any of her childhood memories included the brutalities caused by those wars? The people who grew up during this time remember it and that is why I think many find it hard to accept her thoughts. They seem incomplete.
If she had incorporated a realistic picture of her era, the letter would be extremely effective, if not at the time, later that year. I am talking about Operation Red Dawn and the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. Had Atwood mentioned the wars in her letter, the American people might be inclined to dissect the US’s approach to values, morals, and beliefs. I say this because during the Gulf War the United States government, who was supposed to be neutral in the war, funded Iraq which was lead by Saddam Hussein. When Iran and Syria stopped Iraqi oil production and movement through their territories, the United States started funding the use of chemical weapons and turning a blind eye. Are those not crimes against humanity? Many families and individuals were brutalized by this act and even though it was a breath of fresh air to the whole world that Hussein was captured, what does that say about the USA when it can accuse Hussein of such heinous crimes and act like they had no part what so ever in any of it. By being able to analyze this, the American people might see how their current ways are destroying what is beloved and great about the United States of America.
So I pose a question - Does Margaret Atwood write a fair piece or is she holding onto a childhood memory that is inaccurate due to egocentricity of youth?
Now that I know who Atwood was writing for, I wanted to find out why she wrote it. This letter was first published on March 28, 2003 in the Globe and Mail newspaper. This is after the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers, after the shock the whole world endured from this blow and after the United States sent troops over to Afghanistan. This letter was written at a time when the “War on Terrorism” started to show it’s true colors; many innocent American soldiers were dying and quickly. I say this because the American people were so fueled by hurt, loss, anger, humiliation and revenge that they made a decision based upon those feelings and when the war did not end as quickly as anticipated those emotions calmed which lead many American’s to question whether this was the right decision; is the loss worth the gains? Atwood’s purpose, to me, is to have Americans start to focus positively on themselves instead of negatively about the surrounding world. She says, “Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn‘t use to be easily frightened.” I think she is challenging the American people to change their thought paths, put their money and efforts into supporting their own people to do greatness instead of dumping it into security, national defense and war.
Atwood’s “Letter to America” fuelled a lot of controversy and left room for others to refute her thoughts. To me, I think that this letter could be more effective if she didn’t just focus on childhood memories but focused on true life events during the time. There was war - World War 2 ended in 1945 and The Cold War started in 1953. This is all during the era she is mentioning about as being a “better time.” I find it unfair for Atwood to write about only the good aspects of the era and fail to mention that there was war. I wonder if any of her childhood memories included the brutalities caused by those wars? The people who grew up during this time remember it and that is why I think many find it hard to accept her thoughts. They seem incomplete.
If she had incorporated a realistic picture of her era, the letter would be extremely effective, if not at the time, later that year. I am talking about Operation Red Dawn and the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. Had Atwood mentioned the wars in her letter, the American people might be inclined to dissect the US’s approach to values, morals, and beliefs. I say this because during the Gulf War the United States government, who was supposed to be neutral in the war, funded Iraq which was lead by Saddam Hussein. When Iran and Syria stopped Iraqi oil production and movement through their territories, the United States started funding the use of chemical weapons and turning a blind eye. Are those not crimes against humanity? Many families and individuals were brutalized by this act and even though it was a breath of fresh air to the whole world that Hussein was captured, what does that say about the USA when it can accuse Hussein of such heinous crimes and act like they had no part what so ever in any of it. By being able to analyze this, the American people might see how their current ways are destroying what is beloved and great about the United States of America.
So I pose a question - Does Margaret Atwood write a fair piece or is she holding onto a childhood memory that is inaccurate due to egocentricity of youth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)