Editorial by Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University
In his article, Drew Westen writes about the different qualities that both political parties lack and can learn from each other. On one hand, he states that one pattern consistently found in Democrats is their value in intellect. They move in very logical directions based on science and reasoning. Republicans, such as the candidates running for the 2012 election, have started to move in less intellectual ways, choosing to build their foundations on subjects such as religion. On the other hand, while Democrats possess "generic knowledge," they lack the ability to execute their plans effectively, a skill the Republicans are adept at. Republicans do a good job of making their values known, and moving the social crowds in directions that they want to go. They possess what cognitive scientists refer to as "procedural knowledge."
The context includes having background knowledge on American politics. It also requires a general understanding of the patterns of behavior both the Republican and Democratic parties have demonstrated over the last couple of years.
Rhetorical elements include using specialized terms used by cognitive scientists such as "generic" and "procedural" knowledge. The editorial also makes good use of analogies to help the reader better comprehend his argument on a more simple, more manageable level.
The purpose of the article was to tackle the fundamental problems of our political parties. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are fully in the right or wrong. Rather they both need to improve in certain aspects. I think the author did a decent job in going about his argument. He qualified both sides and gave a very realistic and honest observation.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
AOW #7: Have a Care, Sir
Political Cartoon by Herblock, the chief editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post during the McCarthy Era
The political cartoon reveals the unfair tactics of Senator McCarthy. He used baseless claims and false evidence to jail suspected Communists and anyone who opposed him. President Eisenhower was put into a very tricky position. As President, he could not let McCarthy get away with such injustice; however, at the same time he had to be careful not to become a target himself.
The context of the time includes the anti-Communist/McCarthy movement in the 1950s. It was right after World War II. America's fear of Soviet spies in America was perpetuated by Joseph McCarthy, a US Senator from Wisconsin. As a result, thousands were falsely accused of being Communists and had their lives stripped from them.
Rhetorical elements include symbolism in and juxtaposition between the weaponry used by the characters. On the left is Joseph McCarthy holding a butcher knife, representing his aggressive accusations. On the right is President Eisenhower holding a feather. This represented his helplessness during the time. Because of McCarthy's influence on America, Eisenhower was forced to be extremely cautious about how he dealt with McCarthy. He could not publicly speak out against him, rather he had to work behind the scenes because his reputation was highly at risk. The quote at the top also expresses concern. It reveals the ruthless nature of McCarthy's attacks.
The purpose of this article was to expose Senator McCarthy for who he really was. I think it worked because he made the situation between the two characters very clear. McCarthy's very sinister and churlish appearance became very obvious alongside Eisenhower's helplessness.
The political cartoon reveals the unfair tactics of Senator McCarthy. He used baseless claims and false evidence to jail suspected Communists and anyone who opposed him. President Eisenhower was put into a very tricky position. As President, he could not let McCarthy get away with such injustice; however, at the same time he had to be careful not to become a target himself.
The context of the time includes the anti-Communist/McCarthy movement in the 1950s. It was right after World War II. America's fear of Soviet spies in America was perpetuated by Joseph McCarthy, a US Senator from Wisconsin. As a result, thousands were falsely accused of being Communists and had their lives stripped from them.
Rhetorical elements include symbolism in and juxtaposition between the weaponry used by the characters. On the left is Joseph McCarthy holding a butcher knife, representing his aggressive accusations. On the right is President Eisenhower holding a feather. This represented his helplessness during the time. Because of McCarthy's influence on America, Eisenhower was forced to be extremely cautious about how he dealt with McCarthy. He could not publicly speak out against him, rather he had to work behind the scenes because his reputation was highly at risk. The quote at the top also expresses concern. It reveals the ruthless nature of McCarthy's attacks.
The purpose of this article was to expose Senator McCarthy for who he really was. I think it worked because he made the situation between the two characters very clear. McCarthy's very sinister and churlish appearance became very obvious alongside Eisenhower's helplessness.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
AOW #6: 10 Questions for George H.W. Bush
Article by Michael Duffy
Michael Duffy has written over 40 cover stories for Time Magazine and was named assistant managing editor of Time in 2005. This article is from New York Times, a well-established and trusted resource.
Nearly twenty years after his presidency, George H. W. Bush catches up with Time Magazine in an interview. He is asked about his volunteer work, his observations on the job of President he first took in 1985, and advice he would give future Presidents. He made one statement stating that the position of Presidency is one no one can understand until they've been in it.
The context includes knowing that George H. W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States. It also includes background knowledge on the political process and the changes it's had in recent years
The purpose of the article was simple to get an update from George H. Bush. I think the author succeeded in his purpose; however, it would have been even more interesting if there were more questions asked (although I understand that it was a "10 questions" segment of the magazine).
Rhetorical elements include direct dialogue from George H. W. Bush. It helped to give a greater feel for who
Bush Sr. was as a person and where he stood on certain subjects. George Bush also responds with much experience, which is what substantiated his answers.
Michael Duffy has written over 40 cover stories for Time Magazine and was named assistant managing editor of Time in 2005. This article is from New York Times, a well-established and trusted resource.
Nearly twenty years after his presidency, George H. W. Bush catches up with Time Magazine in an interview. He is asked about his volunteer work, his observations on the job of President he first took in 1985, and advice he would give future Presidents. He made one statement stating that the position of Presidency is one no one can understand until they've been in it.
The context includes knowing that George H. W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States. It also includes background knowledge on the political process and the changes it's had in recent years
The purpose of the article was simple to get an update from George H. Bush. I think the author succeeded in his purpose; however, it would have been even more interesting if there were more questions asked (although I understand that it was a "10 questions" segment of the magazine).
Rhetorical elements include direct dialogue from George H. W. Bush. It helped to give a greater feel for who
Bush Sr. was as a person and where he stood on certain subjects. George Bush also responds with much experience, which is what substantiated his answers.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Unit 1- Assignment Question Reflection
What single assignment, reading, activity or 'something else' was most helpful to you so far and why? Be specific.
I think the most helpful readings that have helped me thus far are George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and Tim O'Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story." Orwell's piece was extremely specific and realistic. He did a good job in tracing such a vague concept of language. Although he didn't exactly present anything new to me, he helped me clarify ideas in an orderly and graspable manner; yet, in doing so, he did not lose depth. Such ideas included the many oblique uses of language, the practicalities and technicalities of language, and how language affects our obligations in society. He help me put names and words to concepts I already felt I understood. O'Brien, on the other hand, did not help me so much in the area of rhetoric itself, but he helped me articulate a better idea of Truth through rhetoric. By offering a different approach to truth, he made me see the many faces of reality. It was the richness of substance and background that I felt ultimately helped me.
I think the most helpful readings that have helped me thus far are George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and Tim O'Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story." Orwell's piece was extremely specific and realistic. He did a good job in tracing such a vague concept of language. Although he didn't exactly present anything new to me, he helped me clarify ideas in an orderly and graspable manner; yet, in doing so, he did not lose depth. Such ideas included the many oblique uses of language, the practicalities and technicalities of language, and how language affects our obligations in society. He help me put names and words to concepts I already felt I understood. O'Brien, on the other hand, did not help me so much in the area of rhetoric itself, but he helped me articulate a better idea of Truth through rhetoric. By offering a different approach to truth, he made me see the many faces of reality. It was the richness of substance and background that I felt ultimately helped me.
Unit 1: Essential Question Reflection
How does the language we use impact our citizenship within a society
George Orwell observed in Politics and the English Language that everything we say indirectly affects politics on some level. When we affect politics, we affect people, and because we affect people, we must take into consideration the extents of which we affect them. We must take into consideration what we say and how we say it because words eventually have physical consequences. If we offer people false information, they will only go on to perpetuate a mass lie. If we settle for a less-than-accurate description of our ideas, people will only be corrupted with oversimplified thoughts. As a result, our entire community becomes burdened with a false sense of logic. Our social systems regarding elections, ideas and policies fail to work because people are no longer thinking by rational means. Instead they are misinformed and made to form bad social habits. As a result, all of society suffers.
Participation within a society is, therefore, not only a privilege but a responsibility as well. We are offered a system in which we can operate our lives more easily (this includes food, health-care, protection, markets). In return, we have an obligation to not destroy it, to keep the system running healthily and efficiently. When we begin to better understand how we affect people subconsciously, we can make a more conscious effort in clearing up unnecessary misunderstandings. Even if we can't help society, we have the responsibility to not do it any harm. We have the responsibility to give those who can help the means and clarity necessary to do so. If we leave those that can help to operate on tainted facts and unclear information, can they really be expected to make any progress? Whether we are news reporters, journalists, teachers, or just everyday citizens, we have obligations to be accurate and fair in our explanations; we cannot manipulate or perpetuate information that we know is faulty and ambiguous. Otherwise, gradually, our systems (for ex. government) will fail and lives will suffer due to our careless use of language.
George Orwell observed in Politics and the English Language that everything we say indirectly affects politics on some level. When we affect politics, we affect people, and because we affect people, we must take into consideration the extents of which we affect them. We must take into consideration what we say and how we say it because words eventually have physical consequences. If we offer people false information, they will only go on to perpetuate a mass lie. If we settle for a less-than-accurate description of our ideas, people will only be corrupted with oversimplified thoughts. As a result, our entire community becomes burdened with a false sense of logic. Our social systems regarding elections, ideas and policies fail to work because people are no longer thinking by rational means. Instead they are misinformed and made to form bad social habits. As a result, all of society suffers.
Participation within a society is, therefore, not only a privilege but a responsibility as well. We are offered a system in which we can operate our lives more easily (this includes food, health-care, protection, markets). In return, we have an obligation to not destroy it, to keep the system running healthily and efficiently. When we begin to better understand how we affect people subconsciously, we can make a more conscious effort in clearing up unnecessary misunderstandings. Even if we can't help society, we have the responsibility to not do it any harm. We have the responsibility to give those who can help the means and clarity necessary to do so. If we leave those that can help to operate on tainted facts and unclear information, can they really be expected to make any progress? Whether we are news reporters, journalists, teachers, or just everyday citizens, we have obligations to be accurate and fair in our explanations; we cannot manipulate or perpetuate information that we know is faulty and ambiguous. Otherwise, gradually, our systems (for ex. government) will fail and lives will suffer due to our careless use of language.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
AOW #5: The Empathic Civilisation
Video by Jeremy Rifkin
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=player_embedded
Jeremy Rifkin is a bestselling author, an American economist, public speaker and activist who studied economics at the Wharton School of UPenn. He is also the president of Foundation On Economic Trends.
In the video, Jeremy Rifkin investigates the development of empathy in humans throughout time. Humans are soft-wired with mirror neurons which allow us to feel empathy. He claims that humanity's main drive in modern times is to belong. He continues to state that to belong is an empathic drive, and that civilization is as a result of being able to feel for one another. He therefore talks about the possibility to stretch our empathy to the whole word at large, rather than limiting it to nationality, religion, kinship or race.
The context is the study of human nature, neuroscience and social science. The audience is anyone looking for food for thought. The purpose is to provoke possibility and to create greater clarity.
Rhetorical elements of this video include, obviously, a visual and continuous string of cartoons exemplifying every word and concept spoken by Jeremy. This serves not only to interest, but to help people more easily understand. Jeremy also uses experiments and certain terms to establish his credibility.
For the most part, Jeremy's way of presentation made it very easy to agree with him. In that sense, I think he succeeded in his purpose. However, there are some points that I do not entirely agree with, some points I think he oversimplified and some enthymemes I think he might have assumed too surmisedly.
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=player_embedded
Jeremy Rifkin is a bestselling author, an American economist, public speaker and activist who studied economics at the Wharton School of UPenn. He is also the president of Foundation On Economic Trends.
In the video, Jeremy Rifkin investigates the development of empathy in humans throughout time. Humans are soft-wired with mirror neurons which allow us to feel empathy. He claims that humanity's main drive in modern times is to belong. He continues to state that to belong is an empathic drive, and that civilization is as a result of being able to feel for one another. He therefore talks about the possibility to stretch our empathy to the whole word at large, rather than limiting it to nationality, religion, kinship or race.
The context is the study of human nature, neuroscience and social science. The audience is anyone looking for food for thought. The purpose is to provoke possibility and to create greater clarity.
Rhetorical elements of this video include, obviously, a visual and continuous string of cartoons exemplifying every word and concept spoken by Jeremy. This serves not only to interest, but to help people more easily understand. Jeremy also uses experiments and certain terms to establish his credibility.
For the most part, Jeremy's way of presentation made it very easy to agree with him. In that sense, I think he succeeded in his purpose. However, there are some points that I do not entirely agree with, some points I think he oversimplified and some enthymemes I think he might have assumed too surmisedly.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
IRB Entry #1
The Open Road by Pico Iyer
Pico Iyer is a British-born writer. He is the author of seven other nonfiction books and two novels. He has written about Tibet for publications such as Time Magazine, The New Yorker and New York Times for more than 20 years. Iyer has also been a friend to the Fourteenth Dalai Lama for more than 30 years. Through years of traveling with His Holiness, intimate conversations, and honest observation, Iyer has come to know the Dalai Lama in a very thorough and fond way. Iyer is a Theosophist, or in other words, a believer of Truth.
Iyer essentially begins the book with simple observations about the Dalai Lama's life. He mentions the Dalai Lama's history in Tibet and family. As the book progresses, his writing gets a bit more intricate. He starts to go into greater detail about the Dalai Lama's struggles as a global icon, his charismatic personality, humble character and his realistic approach toward situations; his refusal to romanticize and simplify complicated problems. Iyer touches on how the Dalai Lama carries out his days, his habits and his meditation.
The book is most likely aimed toward anyone who has interest in the Dalai Lama, researching people's lives and spirituality. The context to be aware of when reading The Open Road is the Tibet Crisis. The Dalai Lama was expelled from Tibet by the Chinese government when he was barely a teenager. He is a spiritual leader and is constantly searching for ways to establish peace and understanding both within China and the world.
Pico Iyer is constantly trying to create connections and insert personal anecdotes to help readers gain better understanding of the observations he makes. He uses dialogue to try to bring ideas full circle. He also uses lots of imagery to set the mood, to give readers a sensual feel of everything that is going on. His ultimate purpose, I think, is to cover the intricacies of the Dalai Lama's life, logic and philosophy. In telling this truth, even objectively, he is also bringing justice to a sometimes misunderstood leader. I think so far, Iyer is successful. He is not lazy or careless with his words. Although indirect in a way, he is very specific about the notes he makes and offers many practical examples.
Pico Iyer is a British-born writer. He is the author of seven other nonfiction books and two novels. He has written about Tibet for publications such as Time Magazine, The New Yorker and New York Times for more than 20 years. Iyer has also been a friend to the Fourteenth Dalai Lama for more than 30 years. Through years of traveling with His Holiness, intimate conversations, and honest observation, Iyer has come to know the Dalai Lama in a very thorough and fond way. Iyer is a Theosophist, or in other words, a believer of Truth.
Iyer essentially begins the book with simple observations about the Dalai Lama's life. He mentions the Dalai Lama's history in Tibet and family. As the book progresses, his writing gets a bit more intricate. He starts to go into greater detail about the Dalai Lama's struggles as a global icon, his charismatic personality, humble character and his realistic approach toward situations; his refusal to romanticize and simplify complicated problems. Iyer touches on how the Dalai Lama carries out his days, his habits and his meditation.
The book is most likely aimed toward anyone who has interest in the Dalai Lama, researching people's lives and spirituality. The context to be aware of when reading The Open Road is the Tibet Crisis. The Dalai Lama was expelled from Tibet by the Chinese government when he was barely a teenager. He is a spiritual leader and is constantly searching for ways to establish peace and understanding both within China and the world.
Pico Iyer is constantly trying to create connections and insert personal anecdotes to help readers gain better understanding of the observations he makes. He uses dialogue to try to bring ideas full circle. He also uses lots of imagery to set the mood, to give readers a sensual feel of everything that is going on. His ultimate purpose, I think, is to cover the intricacies of the Dalai Lama's life, logic and philosophy. In telling this truth, even objectively, he is also bringing justice to a sometimes misunderstood leader. I think so far, Iyer is successful. He is not lazy or careless with his words. Although indirect in a way, he is very specific about the notes he makes and offers many practical examples.