My Topic for The Next Paper

For this blog assignment we were supposed to talk about what topic we will do for our next paper, in which we craft an argument (using visuals) about a controversial topic. I briefly considered doing my paper on abortion, but two things are stopping me: one, our professor specifically said "Don't everyone do it on abortion, because grading twenty papers on the same topic will get old fast", and two, I can't think of any appealing visuals one could possibly utilize on the abortion debate. Also, there's the fact that I am sort of conflicted on abortion... I believe life begins at conception and could never have an abortion myself, but I am fiercly pro-choice for everyone else. It's probably not best to chose an issue I am not 100% one way or another about.

So I'm going with another issue - universal health care. It's an issue I care deeply about, being that I am currently uninsured. Even when I was insured, dealing with the insurance companies was such a hassle, and there were lots of things they either didn't cover or only partially coveraged. I have literally thousands of dollars in medical debt. Meanwhile, I have friends in Canada, the U.K. and other countries that have free universal health care for all citizens, and they can't comprehend how someone like me can be too broke to go see the doctor. I care about a lot of issues politically, but this is one of the most important to me. I would seriously vote for a candidate that I disagreed with about every other thing if they could just get universal health care for our citizens.

Since I am passionate about this issue I think it will translate well into an argumentative paper for me.

Chapter Four

For this blog assignment we were to read on chapter four and reflect on it. I found this chapter very interesting and more readable than some of the other chapters in our text.

This chapter was all about using images in your arguments. It opened by stating visual materials are used with written arguments primarily to appeal to emotions or to clarify numerical data, such as with graphs and charts.

The chapter talked about images in advertisements, and images that accompany news stories. It asked the question, "Are some images not fit to be shown?", and gave examples of the video of journalist Daniel Pearl's execution and the Danish newspapers who printed cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. My opinion on these two situations is, I always believe in free speech and freedom of the press, but the media has a responsibility to be respectful to people in what they show. Airing the video of Pearl's execution is not only in extremely poor taste because of the gruesomeness of the video, but it is extremely disrespectful to Pearl's family. As for the Muhammad cartoons, that's just intentionally going out of your way to offend a major religion, and nothing but trouble can come of that.

Another image that was used in this chapter was that of an advertisement from the American Cancer Society, depicting a cigarette that is bent, and on the opposite end from the filter the cigarette turns into a smoking gun. This is extremely powerful. Most public service announcements or anti-smoking ads are preachy and corny, but this is just a simple image that packs a powerful punch. I used to smoke and if I'd seen this ad, it probably wouldn't have made me quit on its own, but it would have really made me think and consider what I was doing to my body.

The chapter also talked about political cartoons and how they can make a major impression. I enjoyed reading this section because I am something of a political cartoon junkie - I always check out Mike Luckovich and Tom Toles.

The chapter ended with suggestions on designing and formatting academic papers. I found this section helpful.

Franke James Essay

For this blog assignment we were to select an essay by Franke James and reflect on it. I chose the first one of hers that I read, A Green Winter: Will Global Warming Be Good For Canada?, because it was on a topic I care about and also, it caught my eye.

I thought James' essay was excellent and well written. Presenting it as a series of doodles on illustrations and snapshots really brought the message across. At one point the author is talking about how when she went to a resort, all the ski lifts were empty - on a snapshot of lonely looking ski lifts in the sky. At another point she talked about how she was looking over the mountain and not seeing any snow, alongside a photo of green and brown landscape, in the middle of January. This reminded me of a pivotal scene in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, when he showed a picture of a famous mountain (I can't remember which one) as it was years ago, capped with snow, and how it is currently, all brown and shriveled up. You can talk about global warming all you want, but nothing drives the point home like seeing an illustration of what climate change has wrought.

I also liked how James showed photos of Canadian cultural icons, like the Twoonie and a Tim Horton's cup, and how connected with snow they were. It really shows how powerfully snow is intertwined with the Canadian identity, and how much global warming threatens that identity.

Analysis Paper

I chose Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's speech from the recent Republican National Convention as the topic for my analysis paper.

Sarah Palin utilizes a variety of propaganda techniques in her speech. She exudes confidence while speaking, first of all. She also uses the name-calling technique, although she is more subtle about it than most politicians often are. For example, she calls the current Democrat-majority Senate the "current do-nothing Senate" and talks about the "Washington Elite", which is a common conservative perjorative lobbed against Democrats or liberals. (I've never understood that insult, for one, because there's plenty of Republicans in the "Washington Elite" also, but that's just me.)

Mrs. Palin uses the scapegoat technique, although again, she is more subtle about it. Oftentimes politicians will flat out insinuate, "if you don't vote for me, the terrorists win". This time Mrs. Palin simply states, "terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons without delay" and urges us not to "leave ourselves at the the mercy of foreign [oil] suppliers" such as Iran and Venezuala. So she still makes it seem like we are in a dangerous world in which Americans need a protector - and, of course, that protector is herself and John McCain.

Mrs. Palin uses the transfer method by describing John McCain's bravery while a POW in Vietnam, so that we will experience those inspirational feelings.

But most of all, Mrs. Palin utilizes the "plain folks" technique of propaganda, by portraying herself as an average, down-to-earth everywoman. Right towards the beginning of her speech she describes herself as "just your average hockey mom". Later in the speech she talks about how her husband is a commercial fisherman - as opposed to having some executive white collar job. She talks about her kids in great detail. The idea is that a mom will listen to her speech and think, "Hey, I'm really proud of my kids, and so is Sarah Palin - therefore, Sarah Palin is just like me!"

***

When I write my paper, obviously I will go into more details about these propaganda techniques, but that's the gist of what I'm going to write about. I hope I've got the idea of the assignment down.

Analysis Paper Topic

Our second blogging assignment this week is to talk about our topic for the analysis paper on propaganda. I'm choosing to do my analysis paper on Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention, for two reasons. One, because I'm sure everyone expects me to do it on Obama's speech, since I am voting for him and all. Second, because I think Sarah Palin and the Republicans use more propaganda and emotional appeals than Democrats do. That's part of why the Republicans keep getting elected to the presidency over and over again - they're better at appealing to people's emotions than Democrats are, even if (I believe) Democrats are better at the actual job.

Also, even though I really, really can't stand Sarah Palin, I admire her oratory skills and she honestly does give a good speech.

Here is my citation for the analysis paper.

"Sarah Palin RNC Convention Speech." The Huffington Post. 3 Sept. 2008. 17 Sept. 2008 .

Propaganda

This week our blogging assignment was to comment on the handout we received in class, "Emotional Language: Propaganda". This handout detailed what propaganda is and gave examples of how people use it. The author defines propaganda as "a form of persuasion... that appeals to our emotions rather than to our reason". In other words propaganda appeals to pathos rather than logos.

When I hear the term "propaganda" I tend to think of the Nazis, or Stalinist Russia, or George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four (one of my favorite books, by the way). I think of dangerous, manipulative lies and a mob mentality. But the author of this handout stresses that while those are definitely kinds of propaganda, it's not the only kind, and that propaganda itself isn't evil, it's just another emotional appeal. But he cautions us to "know propaganda for what it is" and to "not allow ourselves to be manipulated by it". For example, if we go to a political rally knowing that the speeches we're about to hear could contain propagandist messages (and many politicians do use propaganda) we can allow ourselves to have a clear head and not get sucked into it.

Chapter 5

For this blog assignment, we were to read chapter 5 and give our thoughts on it.

This chapter was infinitely more enjoyable to read, mainly because it was so much shorter - less than half as long as chapter 3. I'm sure we're all grateful for that. :)

This chapter explained how to write an analysis of an argument, and then gave us an example of both an argumentative essay, and a student's analysis of that essay. I found the example of a student's analysis to be very helpful. Her essay touched on a lot of points I would have touched on, such as how the author of the original essay does not adequately go into alternatives to fixing the deer overpopulation problem besides just hunting.

For what it's worth, I don't think solving the deer overpopulation problem is as simple as "thinning the herd" by hunting them. And I say this as someone who grew up in a rural part of upstate New York, where my stepdad and most of my extended family all hunted. As a liberal Democrat I support common sense gun control, but I also support the rights of law-abiding hunters too. However, the real deer overpopulation problem is in the suburbs, and is that really a place where we want hunting? Do we really want guns going off in our neighborhoods where our children play? I can see having specially trained sharp-shooters who "take out" the deer, but just regular sport hunters shooting at will in suburbia? It doesn't seem practical.

Op-Ed Analysis

This week our blogging assignment was to chose an op-ed piece from the newspaper and discuss it based on chapter 3 of our textbook. I chose Hold Your Heads Up by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, a piece telling liberals to be proud of their accomplishments and not let conservatives beat them down.

As I've mentioned before in this blog, I am a devoted Democrat and Liberal. I am not ashamed of being so; in fact I am quite proud of my political convinctions. I freely identify myself this way. But we liberals have been told we are clueless, wrong, bad for America, and a million other ugly things by conservative politicians and the conservative media machine for so long, a lot of us believe it. The author touches on this point by saying,

Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.

This is an instance of arguing by defining by example, demonstrating how liberals have been trying to adopt more of the conservative platform in an attempt to appear less liberal. Obviously, that never works. The liberal just appears to be a sell-out or compromising their beliefs.

The author further defines by example throughout the rest of his piece, showing ways in which liberals have benefitted America over the past century. He gives examples such as Social Security, Medicare, and advancement of civil rights causes. This can also be called arguing by example by citing real events.

The author uses emotional appeals with this sentence:

Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak.

By reminding us of loved ones who benefit from Medicare and Medicaid, he is appealing to our emotions.

Finally, the author utilizes verbal irony by stating:

Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.

With this passage the author is implying that the conservative, African-American Supreme Court Justice is self-hating. (The author of this op-ed is black himself.) Whether that's true or not isn't something I would know, but it's amusing nonetheless.

I greatly enjoyed this op-ed piece, as I generally enjoy everything written by this author. It reminded me of why I am proud to be a liberal.

Handout and Chapter Three

This week we are supposed to blog about two things: a handout on high school English literature, and Chapter 3 of our textbook.

I'll start with the handout. There were two aspects to the handout: letters to the editor concerning John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and whether it was appropriate for high school readers, and also an opinion piece from a high school English teacher lamenting how we don't teach our teens good novels. I was intrigued by the discussion of Grapes of Wrath, because I've always meant to read it and just never got around to doing so. I know that it's about the Great Depression and migrant farmers coming to California, that it was made into a famous movie, and that it's considered one of the classics of American literature, but for whatever reason I've just never read it. I think I might do so now... if only because one of the writers said it was sordid and innapropriate for young readers. I've found that many books that are considered inapropriate are actually great reads.

The column from the high school English teacher was interesting, but I couldn't quite get a handle on exactly what her argument or main point was. Was it that we need to teach more interesting books to high schoolers? Was it that teenagers simply have too many distractions these days, with YouTube and video games, to be interested in "pictureless chains of black print", as she called it? I couldn't quite figure out where she was coming from. She made too many points but didn't have a clear MAIN point.

The other topic we were to blog about this week was chapter 3 of our textbook. This was a long (30 some odd pages) chapter that was densely packed with information, dealing primarily with arguments and how it related to critical thinking.

One concept that I had trouble with in this chapter was syllogism. The text states that a syllogism is "The joining of two premises - two statements taken to be true - to produce a conclusion, a third statement." It further defines syllogism as being Greek for "a reckoning together". I understood the basic definition, but had trouble applying it practically. The easiest way for me to understand syllogism is to think of it as a synonym for "conclusion", but that seems a little simplistic.

An interesting thing in this chapter was the essay by George F. Will. Now, because I am a devoted Democrat and Liberal, I generally avoid anything written by Mr. Will, a staunch Conservative, because I know it will only serve to irritate me. I can appreciate Mr. Will's style and skill as a writer, but everything he says, pretty much I disagree with. This essay was no different. I admired his wit and his skill at crafting an argument, but everything he said made me roll my eyes and get annoyed. But I think it's good for me to read things I disagree with occasionally; it makes me better for having seen both sides of an argument.