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