TOW #31: Letter

After this month, you will never again pick up or even look at Eats, Shoots & Leaves. That's the good news. If you put effort into this class, your writing will drastically improve. That's also the good news. Most of the writing you do will be non-graded in-class essays. That's odd; it's almost as if this entire paragraph is good news. This class is not nearly as bad as the seniors would lead you to believe. While the work standards are high, the workload isn't heavy, and it's all helping you improve the quality of your writing. A packet here, a blog post there-- if you don't do the work that is expected of you, I have no sympathy.

Schedule meetings with Mr. Yost and Ms. Pronko when you need help. They're so generous with their availability that not utilizing them as a resource is almost insulting. I personally wish I had made more appointments, but I'm the type of person who is scared to let people read my rough drafts. Don't be me. Don't be a wimp. If you need help with a paper or a certain type of essay, ask Mr. Yost if he has time to look over it or help you practice. Consider this the push you need.

You are going to have failures. You will have big failures, and these you will fix. You will have small failures, and these you will blow out of proportion. Do the work, put the time in, take a deep breath, and you will be fine. Failures only make the successes more exciting.

Plus there's always toga day to look forward to.

Oh, and however "good" or "bad" you think you are at English, you're wrong. Really. Don't get discouraged; don't get cocky.

TOW #30: Documentary Continued

Jesus Camp, directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, documents "Kids on Fire," a summer camp run by Evangelical pastor Becky Fischer to train children for the "army of God." In the film, radio show host Mike Papantonio criticizes Fischer for forcing militant religion onto children as young as six years old. To justify her actions, Fischer replies, "It's no wonder, with that kind of intense training and discipling, that those young people are ready to kill themselves for the cause of Islam. I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I wanna see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, you know, because we have... excuse me, but we have the truth!" Although not argued by the filmmakers themselves, this claim is one of the main focuses of the film as it follows Fischer trying to make that dream a reality.

To begin, I'd first like to point out the fact that Fischer believes Israel is an Islamic nation. Such unintentional irony severely damages her ethos. In fact, it's almost funny, which is good since this is otherwise a distressing issue. Fischer doesn't even say she wants children to "be ready to lay down their lives," as if that's much better. According to this claim, Fischer wants to see young people "radically laying down their lives," implying that she believes there is currently a need for children to die in order to protect Christianity because it's "the truth," therefore justifying any form of violence used to "defend" it. I might be interested in exactly what plans she has for this hypothetical child army if it weren't such a terrifying, inhumane concept. Fischer reasons that Christians should be prepared to evenly match Muslim's actions, not even pausing to consider whether God would actually want adults to send children to die for Him. Children under twelve can't even be employed in the United States, let alone be sent into battle. In addition, the fact that Fischer associates Islam with evil and Middle Eastern nations with Islam reveals a generalizing, racist, dehumanizing view of those who live in the Middle East or are of Middle Eastern descent.

I am concerned that Fischer lectures for a living about a situation on which she is not competently educated. I am concerned that she sees Islam as the direct enemy of Christianity, and the Middle East as the breeding ground of Islam, and therefore of evil. I am concerned that she thinks Christians must militarize or let the Muslims win. I am concerned that she thinks there will soon come a time when her religion must be defended by force. I am concerned that she believes violence is God's intention for the human race.

I am deeply, genuinely concerned that a woman who works directly with children would like to see them die for her cause.

TOW #29: Documentary (Jesus Camp)

In 2006, filmmakers Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing released Jesus Camp, a documentary about a summer camp called "Kids on Fire" that encourages Evangelical Christian children to become social, political, and potentially physical warriors of faith. Run by pastor Becky Fischer, "Kids on Fire" trains kids as young as six years old to be part of the "army of God" through purification, education, dedication, and sociopolitical activism. Little information is available online about the filmmakers, but it is evident that Grady is Jewish, that both directors have produced several documentaries on a wide variety of subjects, and that the two have worked together on multiple projects.

Grady and Ewing claim that the documentary "doesn't come with any prepackaged point of view*," but the directors must have known that there would be strong backlash against both the film and the documented religious practices. Public reaction was so negative that Fischer shut down "Kids on Fire" just two months after Jesus Camp's release because of the criticism she received for "brainwashing" children. By using emotional content and including a "voice of reason", Grady and Ewing spoke from a neutral perspective but still managed to convey shock and horror to most audience members.

As a documentary about children and religion, Jesus Camp evokes a wide range of strong emotions. The filmmakers used this to their advantage by using their footage to further appeal to pathos. Although the documentary is about the camp as a whole, it focuses on the lives of three ten-year-old camp attendees to create a stronger personal connection. Once the audience begins to feel sympathy for these children, to filmmakers show them sobbing at camp because they're sinners and God cannot love sinners. These children are shown in intense prayer, sometimes speaking in tongues and falling to the ground. When prompted they exclaim that they would be proud to die for their religious beliefs, implying that "Kids on Fire" is creating dozens of willing martyrs. Showing such heartwrenching scenes allows Grady and Ewing to convey the intensity of the "Jesus Camp" while seemingly staying neutral.

Between segments, Jesus Camp cuts to footage of  Mike Papantonio, a radio host discussing why "Kids on Fire" is dangerous and immoral. Papantonio ostensibly presents a counterargument to the one demonstrated by Becky Fischer and the Jesus Camp community. In reality, the emotional nature of the film has already angered most audience members, and Papantonio is just there to articulate the problems that are upsetting them. Papantonio's purpose culminates with a radio interview with Fischer that directly challenges the ideas of the Evangelical leader. Papantonio, representing rational public opinion, opposes the entire idea of training children for the army of God, thus coloring the tone of the entire documentary. Although Grady and Ewing claim to present an unbiased perspective, Papantonio is the voice of the audience and thus the voice of the documentary as a whole.

*http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/40691698.html

TOW #28: TOW Review

Throughout the year, I believe my TOWs have been greatly increasing in quality and effectiveness.


http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/tow-3-article-fed-too-familiar-with.html

One of the first TOWs I ever wrote, my September 29 TOW about an article titled "Fed Too Familiar With Lost Labor Seeking New Messages for Policy" is a work of brilliance. I dedicate an entire paragraph to my reason for choosing the article and how well I believe the author achieved her purpose. My chosen rhetorical strategy is that the author "appeals to logos." I also use the phrase "I'm not sure if this next tool has a specific literary term," which I'm sure would have earned no less than a 5 on exam day.


http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tow-11-article-catch-cold-go-to-prison.html

By December 1, my writing had significantly improved. To start, I don't dedicate a paragraph to my own reactions and thoughts about "Catch a Cold, Go to Prison: The Recidivism Debate." I identify two strategies (word usage and juxtaposition) and give each of them a well-developed paragraph, quoting the article in each one. However, I still have absolutely no semblance of a conclusion.


http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/tow-21-article-whats-point.html

Come March 9, I had again improved both the quality of my TOWs and the difficulty of my reading selections. I chose to read the article "Give the PAT the Boot" because it was about football and I knew next to nothing about football. I identified a single rhetorical strategy but thoroughly explained how it was used and what effect it had on the article. I then explained how the context of the article on the website also had an effect on the credibility of the article. I had much more of a conclusion than in the two previously mentioned TOWs and believe that this one was the strongest of the three, showing an upward trend in my writing.

TOW #27: Article (Are Car Journalists "Bought?")

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/road-cars/opinions/are-car-journalists-bought/

Goal: Understand and write about a topic I try to avoid.

One of the most pressing issues in the media today is the question of journalistic integrity. This is especially true in the car industry, where most of the reviews are positive and companies pay for writers to attend their conventions. Do car reviewers really mean what they say, or are their eyes clouded by dollar signs? In Andrew Frankel's Motor Sport article "Are Car Journalists 'Bought?'", he uses anecdotes and lists to prove that the best motoring journalists say what they really think about cars.

Frankel, a "senior contributing writer" at Motor Sport magazine, introduces the topic of journalistic integrity using an anecdote about a car convention he recently attended. While at the Tokyo Motorshow, Frankel explained to a friend that Honda paid for his plane ticket and hotel room, to which the friend replied, "In exchange for which you write nice things about their cars?" Frankel was not surprised to hear this question, but it made him think. The author uses this anecdote to introduce a common misconception in a way that makes the misconception understandable. He gives the reader the same evidence that his friend had to show why it is conceivable that many people may believe there's a cozy relationship between car makers and car writers. Once this is set up, he can begin to disprove it.

Frankel lists reasons why there might be more positive car reviews than negative, and why car makers care enough to fly writers out to their conventions if there's no guaranteed profit. First, he says, motor journalists quite simply love cars, and would therefore prefer to write positive reviews because they want to believe cars are good. "Secondly," he writes, "cars are still getting better and at an astonishing rate, which is not something I think you can say about watches, films or, in my experience, even dishwashers." Because of this improvement, there is usually something new and good to be written about a car that could not have been written five years ago. He goes on to list other reason why there seems to be a disproportionate number of positive car reviews. The effect of this list is that the misconception is disproven in several different, unrelated ways, leaving it well and truly dead.

TOW #26: Visual Text (Fire!)

Goal: Less claim, more devices

A man called Hysteria, holding a bucket of water, rushes up a ladder while yelling, "Fire!" to quench the flames of the Statue of Liberty's torch. Herbert Block's "Fire!" was first published in the Washington Post on June 17, 1949. Block, commonly known as Herblock, was an American political cartoonist active from 1929 to 2001. His drawings often commented on foreign and domestic affairs from a liberal perspective, as demonstrated by this criticism of the xenophobia and communist hysteria beginning in post-WWII America. In "Fire," Block relies mainly on cultural memory to argue that America's anti-communist witch hunts were exaggerated to a fundamentally un-American level.

America has always been particular about its patriotism. There are certain phrases that can rile up a crowd--just chanting "USA," for example, is usually effective--but our most significant symbols are usually images like the American flag or the Liberty Bell. By incorporating the Statue of Liberty into is political cartoon, Block is directly attacking the symbol that America holds so dear. However, Block is not the one with the water bucket. It's Hysteria, meant to represent the sociopolitical panic caused by the fear of spreading communism, who is about the put out the eternal fire of liberty. Block juxtaposes this American idealism with reality to show the hypocrisy in defeating liberty for the sake of protecting it.

Although we today objectively know that this cartoon is accurate, Block's audience in the 1940's and 50's either already agreed with him or was too committed to the very conformist culture that Block is protesting to appreciate or be swayed by the cartoon. In fact, people probably began to suspect that Block was a communist in hiding. It was a bad time for political cartoons, but Block's reach into cultural memory made this one seemingly effective.

IRB Post #4: Tuesdays with Morrie

A man sees his former college professor on an episode of Nightline and is reminded of his promise to keep in touch. He flies out to see his ALS-stricken professor and is so touched that they have weekly meetings. This is the premise of Mitch Albom's Tuesdays with Morrie, an account of the weekly meetings where they discuss love, life, and death.

Although it is a memoir like I Am Malala, this one promises to be more of an emotional narrative than a collection of facts and events. I look forward to reading a book with a little more heart.

TOW #25: Article (Facebook, Amazon, Our Government and Your Privacy)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/23/facebook-amazon-our-government-and-your-privacy/

Writing Goal: Provide effective, relevant evidence to support my claim


Every day, we give out personal information on the internet--to shopping sites, to social media, to emails. When it comes to invading our privacy, is there really a difference between Facebook and the NSA? John Stossel, an analyst for Fox News and former co-anchor of 20/20, feels strongly about the government's ability to track its citizens and their technology usage. In "Facebook, Amazon, Our Government and Your Privacy," Stossel uses direct comparisons and simple sentence structure to argue that the moral issue is not that the government invades our privacy, but that  it does not have our consent to do so.

Stossel's main argument is based on comparing and contrasting the ways that private websites and the government invade our privacy. He begins by reminding his audience that they nonchalantly agree to be tracked and give out personal information on the internet. Nobody even reads the terms and conditions because we're so accustomed to threats like identity fraud that we don't take drastic steps to prevent it. On the other hand, the government doesn't want to steal your identity; they say they just collect patterns of phone numbers. Looking at both groups, Stossel argues, "By comparison, the National Security Agency's data mining seems relatively benign.[...] But the distinction we care about shouldn't be whether they know my name. The important difference is whether what you do is voluntary." The most important comparison doesn't lie within the actions or their intents, but within . We choose to their give our information out to private sites but not to the government, and that difference is all that matters.

In addition, Stossel often uses short declarative sentences for much of the article. This gives him the effect of stating fact or truth; a reader assesses the validity of each individual sentence more than the group of them. For example, Stossel writes, "But we don't place an infinite value on privacy. [...] What we really value is the freedom to choose when we'll do that and when we'll tell people to butt out. We can never tell government to butt out." Although one cannot factually state what all of society values, Stossel presents his viewpoint as if he is doing just that. By acting as if there is no room to argue, Stossel makes the reader more likely to agree with his perspective rather than consider alternatives.

Stossel's comparisons and declarative sentences allow him to effectively argue against government tracking of civilians. He appears blind to opposing viewpoints, but still manages to consider the complexity of the issue at hand: it's okay that the government is getting more involved, but not okay that it's involuntary on our part.

TOW #24: IRB (How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read)

Goal: Stay on task in explaining the devices.

From chance encounters with famous authors to (rare) incidents of forgetting to read for a class, we all experience potentially awkward situations when we must discuss books we haven’t fully read. Luckily, French author Pierre Bayard is here to save the day with his book, How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read.

Bayard’s straightforward style of writing makes it easy to understand his ideas and suggestions. In addition to the numerous examples he uses (which I mentioned in my first IRB post), the author gives his tips in the form of simple commands. In the section about talking to authors, he writes, “There is only one sensible piece of advice to give to those who find themselves having to talk to an author about one of his books without having read it: praise it without going into detail.” Admittedly, the sentence preceding the command is a bit lengthy, but Bayard simplifies his writing where it counts. Almost everybody likes cut-and-dry rules and those are what he provides.

Bayard often philosophizes about the nature of books and reading, which may seem boring to the casual reader but fascinating to the truly interested. For example, Bayard muses, “What we preserve of the books we read—whether we take notes or not, and even if we sincerely believe we remember them faithfully—is in truth no more than a few fragments afloat, like so many islands, on an ocean of oblivion…” Bayard uses logic like this to justify the idea that actually reading books isn’t much more valiant than skimming or researching, and in many cases is a waste of time (that could be spent reading worthwhile material). This especially appeals to the portion of the audience that is typically loyal to books and might feel guilty or wrong in forgoing the actual reading experience.

For the organization and discussion ideas, How to Talk is already a worthwhile guide, but the occasional stream of consciousness writing about books as a concept gives it an extra entertaining edge that makes it worthwhile as a book (and not just a how-to guide).


*I repeat from IRB post 1: Page citations are difficult, as this is being read on Kindle Cloud.

TOW #23: Article (Why Disaster Warning and Development Go Hand in Hand)

In order to make early action disaster plans more effective, we need to change cultural values in order to make locals more accepting of the plan, according to Andrew Collins's article titled "Why Disaster Warning and Development Go Hand in Hand" and published on SciDev.net, an internet science forum. Regardless of whether or not the article was actually well-written, Andrew Collins certainly has the authority to write it; he's the director of the Disaster and Development Centre at the British Northumbria University. After reading so many articles that didn't give the author's credentials (or, in worse cases, name) it's nice to see a publication that cares about the credibility of its work.

Author Andrew Collins mostly relies on his credibility as a disaster expert in order to make his points. The appeal to ethos is sudden but present; even at the beginning of the article, he is introduced as "disaster policy expert Andrew Collins." He goes on to make a series of broad claims and statements of fact; if the author wasn't so qualified to write on the subject, I would expect to see sources and backing, but because Collins is credible I trust that the information is accurate.

I don't think the article achieved its purpose because I'm not really sure that it had a purpose. Perhaps an outline would've helped, because the piece starts shaky and goes nowhere. With a plea so abstract as "improve disaster warning systems," one must ground their argument in specific examples of how they want this to be done, and Mr. Collins does not do this. I've learned that personal circumstances and cultural values play a part in disaster readiness, but have not learned the author's plan for how to use them to improve. Although the article seemed promising in theory, there isn't much to take away.


http://www.scidev.net/global/disasters/opinion/why-disaster-warning-and-development-go-hand-in-hand-1.html

TOW #22: Visual Text (Bill of Fare Cartoon)

The above political cartoon, drawn in 1898 by an unidentified cartoonist, satirizes the casualty of American imperialism. At the time, McKinley was President, and although he wasn't strongly in support of imperialism, he often found himself pressured by the rest of the nation (mainly by businessmen and journalists) to take action that would lead to the acquisition of foreign nations and peoples.

The policy of massive takeover in the context of a quaint cafe highlights the nonchalance with which America invaded nations like Cuba and the Philippines. Rather than think about it carefully with a board of advisers, the image of "Uncle Sam" decides how to use his naval power with all the seriousness of deciding what to order off of a restaurant menu. The author's message is that America didn't consider the gravity of the order to send troops to a nation and dominate it. It was a spontaneous decision that didn't take into account the morality or even necessity of the U.S.'s actions.

The depiction of McKinley as a waiter exaggerates his passivity in office. The President is supposed to serve our country, but McKinley is portrayed as literally serving our country, thus implying that he doesn't exercise his right to rule and instead bends to the will of the American people. Had McKinley not had, as Teddy Roosevelt stated, "the backbone of a chocolate eclair," he might have had a chance to resist the desire (fueled by yellow journalism and economic wishes) of America to begin a system of quasi-Euro imperialism.

It is important to remember that the illustrator of this cartoon was alive during the time when places like Guam and Hawaii were being tacked onto the United States just to forge a path to China. Whatever ideas we have of the past must be forgotten, even if they agree with the authors', since our minds were changed by history.

TOW #21: Article (Give the PAT the Boot)

In football, a team that scores a touchdown can attempt to score and extra point by kicking a field goal. I knew this. What I did not know (and had to look up) was that they're called PATs, for "points after touchdown." I don't typically read sports news, but this week I read an article by Peter King in Sports Illustrated (I'm sure there are better sports magazines but I obviously don't know them) arguing mostly through numbers that the extra point in football is no longer valuable, despite being a beloved practice in football tradition.

King's argument was mostly driven by statistics, which impressed me because I didn't know there were statistics for this kind of thing. He first argues that football is a waste of valuable playing time. It takes about 45 seconds to go through with a PAT, and they happen five times per NFL game. They're not even exciting anymore, he argues. King cites the statistic that in the last three years, 3,709 extra points have been attempted and only eighteen were missed, giving the action a 99.5% success rate. He uses the statistic to point out that PATs have become such automatic actions for kickers that they're not exciting anymore. Employing statistics really enhances his argument because any sports fan can argue that something is good or bad for the sport, but numbers are real proof to support an argument and increase credibility.

Just a page away, King's coworker Robert Klemko wrote an article countering King's viewpoint and saying that change shouldn't be rushed. Although King didn't write it, this is in a way like addressing the counterargument because the two articles are meant to be read together. Each adds credibility to the other in that they were written with the counterargument already in mind. I have not yet read Klemko's take on the issue, but as it stands now, King's was persuasive and informative enough to sway me to his side of the argument.


http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/23/nfl-extra-point-elimination/

TOW #20: IRB (How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read)

*Citations are difficult; this is being read on Kindle Cloud, which doesn't even technically give page numbers.


Even the most avid readers occasionally find themselves attempting to discuss books they haven't thoroughly read. Fear not, readers, for Frenchmen Pierre Bayard is here to destigmatize skimming, forgetting, and lying in his book, How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read. The book is broken into three parts: types of "not reading," types of social situations, and types of behavior. Though writing on an unconventional and slightly ironic topic, Bayard uses plenty of examples to provide a guide to discussing a book you're not completely familiar with.

From Oscar Wilde to the movie Groundhog Day, Bayard draws examples from a variety of sources to convey his message that you can, in fact, talk about books you haven't read. He labels them based on his own scale of familiarity: SB for a book he's skimmed, HB for a book he's heard of, and FB for a book he's forgotten. He then rates and critiques them, since, as he points out, "there is, after all, no reason for me to refrain from passing judgment on whatever works I come across, even if I have never heard of them before." Bayard's practical use of his own principles gives the reader a clearer understanding of the book's message and demonstrates how his tactics appear to other people when used properly. The variety in Bayard's sources allows him to prove the universality of his claims.

Bayard also gives examples of real-life situations in which this information may become useful. As a literature professor, he often finds himself needing to talk about a book he hasn't read. He then employs his own book-talking strategy because, as he says, "There is a risk that at any moment my class will be disrupted and I will be humiliated." Showing the reader how he uses the book in his own life grounds the information in reality and gives it more credibility. He also uses non-personal examples, such as a hypothetical man going to a large convention and meeting the author of books he has yet to read. The more examples Bayard gives, the more useful the book.

Through several types of examples from several different media, Bayard demonstrates his theory that understanding the "essence" of a book is more important than knowing the content, and is therefore enough to get by in a conversation.

TOW #19: Article (How to Make the World $600 Billion Poorer)

Reading Goal: Take the time to understand a writing sample from a genre (economics) that usually bores me.
Writing Goal: Thoroughly explain how the article's writing strategies make it more effective.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21596934-barack-obamas-unwillingness-fight-free-trade-expensive-mistake-how-make-world


Making trade agreements is easier when Congress is only allowed to vote yes or no, and can't pick the agreement apart. This "fast-track" deal with Congress was given to President Bush from 2002 to 2007; Obama's administration has yet to renew it. With a major trade opportunity on the line, the absence of a fast-track deal may bring the whole thing crashing down, argues the author of The Economist article "How to Make the World $600 Billion Poorer." Unfortunately the author is unidentified, which damages the article's credibility, but the fact that it is written in a well-known publication like The Economist is enough to redeem it. "How to Make the World $600 Billion Poorer" is effective mainly because of its reader-friendly argument shape. Loosely following the classical oration style, it has an introduction, background information, claim, counterargument, and conclusion.

The author structures the argument clearly, which helps guide a less knowledgeable reader like myself through the article without getting lost. It begins with a simple thesis statement: If Obama does not stand up to his party, the author argues, "it will [...] be a signal that America is giving up its role as defender of an open global economy." Such a straightforward statement allows me to look for evidence in the rest of the article, which makes me engage with and therefore better understand the text. The reader is then given background information on the subject, which is again helpful if they are unfamiliar. In a separate section with a new heading, the author begins to describe the perceived problem. By distinctly separating those two parts, the author facilitates the reader's  by setting up a sort of checkpoint to make sure the reader thoroughly understands the basics before moving on. Just before the conclusion, the author conveys the urgency of the issue by answering their own question, "Why panic about this?" In a classically structured argument, this would take the place of the counterargument section in that it anticipates and responds to readers' thoughts.

This article is effective in informing and persuading its audience because its structure makes it so easy to comprehend. It is especially effective with readers like me who have no prior knowledge of the situation and whose opinions can therefore be manipulated easily. By following classical oration, the author was able to communicate with a wider audience than just economically informed readers of The Economist.

TOW #18: Article (The Cult of Overwork)

James Surowiecki, who has written for The New Yorker since 2000, published "The Cult of Overwork" in this year's January 27 publication. He makes the argument that bankers and analysts could be more productive if they cut down the hours they work, but that the culture of these professions would strongly resist it. He suggests that banks change their expectations for their workers in an effort to change this overworking culture and produce more efficient work methods.

Surowiecki uses statistics to demonstrate how the world of Wall Street is conditioned to work long hours. For example, he writes, "A 2008 Harvard Business School survey of a thousand professionals found that ninety-four per cent worked fifty hours or more a week, and almost half worked in excess of sixty-five hours a week." These statistics, the strongest and clearest evidence he could use, give the reader background information on business culture which is essential for the reader to understand in order to comprehend Surowiecki's main claim.

Unfortunately (from my perspective), the author spends only one paragraph proving that reducing the number of hours worked could increase worker productivity. He also supplies relatively weak evidence: just a few vague examples and a study or two. Surowiecki writes, "Among industrial workers, overtime raises the rate of mistakes and safety mishaps; likewise, for knowledge workers fatigue and sleep-deprivation make it hard to perform at a high cognitive level." The facts aren't insignificant, but I find it disappointing and ineffective that the author gives more attention and better evidence to proving that bankers are overworking than to proving that they shouldn't do that.

A Deep Picture of a Businessman Bear Who Wants to Run On a Broken Hamster Wheel

Well, The New Yorker used it...

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/01/27/140127ta_talk_surowiecki

IRB #3: How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read

For the third marking period, I will be reading Pierre Bayard's How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read. It is split into three sections: "Ways of Not Reading," "Literary Confrontations," and "Ways of Behaving." From there, it is divided even further into chapters such as "Books You Don't Know" and "Books You Have Skimmed."

The book promises to provide very thorough instructions for how to get the most out of books without actually reading them. I want this only for personal (and certainly not academic) reasons; there are far too many books that I would hypothetically like to read, but can't seem to make myself pick up due to old language or sheer length.

TOW #17: Visual Text (Budweiser Commercial)

Budweiser's "Puppy Love" Super Bowl Commercial

Using a tactic very common among recent commercials, Budweiser has created an effective commercial that is completely unrelated to the product being sold. Its "Puppy Love" Super Bowl commercial features a puppy who loves at a pet adoption center and befriends one of the neighbor's horses. When a man tries to take the puppy away, the horse saves the day and gets him back to the farm where he belongs.

From the very beginning, this entire commercial is designed to appeal to pathos: specifically, to the audience's senses of cultural memory and cuteness. The advertisement begins by playing a popular song that many people consider beautiful and moving. On top of that, the song is now telling the story of a puppy. We still don't know what the commercial is about, but it's adorable and we have to find out what happens. The man who adopts the puppy is the obvious antagonist of the commercial's short plot. He is portrayed as disinterested and uncaring with the way he throws the puppy into the backseat. Of course, the horse is the hero, who gallops over in a flash of light to stop the mean man from taking the poor puppy. Finally, in a happy ending, the pappy gallops back home so he can play with his horse best friend forever. The end.

In the span of one minute, the audience of this commercial has been taken through an entire plotline based on the friendship of two animals. Nobody knows what it's actually advertising. At last, we see the point: it's a Budweiser commercial based on a play on words of the phrase "best buds." Logically speaking, this should not convince anyone to purchase Budweiser beer. It has given absolutely no reason why you should. However, the commercial is entertaining and memorable, and that alone will earn millions of dollars for the company. The implied connection between puppies and beer is one big logical fallacy, but it's just so darn cute.

TOW #16: IRB (I Am Malala)

An activist for education and women's rights, Malala Yousafzai has run a blog for the BBC, starred in a New York Times documentary about Pakistan, and been nominated for the International Children's Peace Prize. Only fifteen years old, she was shot in the head and neck by the Taliban in October 2012. She survived the assassination attempt and became even more successful; she was named one of Time's "100 Most Influential People in the World" and nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. With help from Oxford-educated British journalist Christina Lamb, Yousafzai wrote I Am Malala as equal parts autobiography and memoir.

The best parts, in my opinion, are when Yousafzai uses anecdotes to let the reader know what her life really feels like. Even when not much is occurring, the writing becomes more detailed and relatable when Yousafzai writes a first-hand account. For example, she writes, "That morning we arived in the narrow mud lane off Haji Baba Road in our usual procession of brightly painted rickshaws, sputtering diesel fumes, each one crammed with five or six girls" (3). Because she experienced this herself, Yousafzai is able to convey the event better than if she had simply researched it. The anecdotes often include imagery and sensory details that allow the reader to imagine the smell of diesel fuel or the sight of the brightly colored rickshaws.

Although the autobiographical information is interesting, Yousafzai (likely with some prodding from Lamb) sometimes gives a lot of information that I, as a reader of a book about Malala Yousafzai, do not find necessary. She dedicates a large section to her father's background and beliefs; the information seems both impersonal and slightly irrelevant. (After all, the book is not called I Am Ziauddin.) I realize that Yousafzai and Lamb are trying to inform readers, but I feel like it was distracting and forced. Other than that complaint, the book is generally well-written and the authors are entertaining and informing in the way that they wanted to be.

TOW #15: Article (Want to See China's Latest Top Secret Military Site? Just Google It)

Time Magazine published Dan Kedmey's article, "Want to See China's Latest Top Secret Military Site? Just Google It." on September 15, 2013. Kedmey appears to have written for Time since June 5 of last year, but that's all the information that can be found. His article topics have ranged from North Korea to internet in the Pacific Islands to One Direction. His only credit is that he has been consistently published in Time Magazine for a few months. This is the first strike against the article.

Kedmey begins by comparing the use of spies and satellite pictures during the Cold War to the Google Earth images of military intelligence we can access today. The comparison effectively shows how current technology far surpasses anything we have had throughout history. He explains that Peter Singer and Jeremy Lin, two military technology enthusiasts (experts?), wrote an analysis of the production of the first Chinese military aircraft carrier based solely on images found on public blogs. The reader learns more about the analysis and the current technology available to us, then is stuck with five hundred words of background information about Jeremy Lin and the online military forums he uses. Kedmey offers some information about the internet's ability to find and interpret confidential information, but focuses mainly on Lin, calling him a "digital-age Pocahontas, who could lead old-school intelligence experts through the unfamiliar terrain of crowd-sourced pictures." The allusion, in addition to going into far too much detail about a man the reader doesn't care about, is also inaccurate: Kedmey likely meant to compare Lin to Sacagawea. Strike two.

Fortunately, the article does not receive a third strike; it was neither fantastic nor awful. Kedmey's goal was to show the readers of Time Magazine the shocking ease with which military intelligence can be leaked. However, I believe he should have further explained the significance of this availability of information. In his final paragraphs, he quickly describes the CIA's center for open source intelligence, to which the general public submits information to be reviewed as possible evidence in threat assessments. Had he included more of this type of information and less on the background of the barely relevant military enthusiast, this article would have more impact on its readers.

Aircraft Carrier Production

The top secret Chinese aircraft carrier isn't so secret after all.

http://world.time.com/2013/09/14/wanna-see-chinas-latest-top-secret-military-site-just-google-it/

TOW #14: Article (When I'm Sixty-Four)

The New York Times writer Roger Cohen firmly believes that technology will soon create human lifespans of up to 200 years; he also believes their are many reasons why we should not take advantage of this particular opportunity. Cohen claims that "limited natural resources, already aging populations, spreading megacities, a dearth of jobs in the developed world, severe strains on health services, disappearing pensions and growing inequality" are issues that would reach a critical state if humans started to routinely live 30+ years longer than they do today. The only information he uses to support this claim is a study conducted by Pew Research Center which found that "56 percent of American adults said they would not choose to undergo medical treatments to live to 120 or more." This, of course, does not support the claim in any way. Unfortunately for Mr. Cohen, he does not seem to have enough evidence to make his argument convincing.

Personally, I believe Cohen just barely accomplishes his purpose, if at all. He starts to get his point across, but in the critical final paragraph, he decides to become a poet instead of a journalist. "Immortality — how tempting, how appalling! What a suffocating trick on the young! Death is feared, but it is death that makes time a living thing. Without it life becomes a featureless expanse. I fear death, up to a point, but would fear life without end far more: All those people to see over and over again, worse than Twitter with limitless characters." I hate to quote so much of the article, but I felt it necessary to demonstrate the use of exclamation points and vaguely philosophical phrases. A reader is able to skim it briefly and determine that he fears hyper-lengthened lifespans, but the conclusion is written in such broad terms that it could not possibly sway readers onto his side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/opinion/cohen-when-im-sixty-four.html?ref=editorials&_r=0