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.