TOW #10 - A 21st Century Modest Proposal

After our discussion of Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal", for my TOW #10, I read a 21st Century imitation of this essay. In "A 21st Century Modest Proposal", Samuel Faktorow comments on the topic of Same-sex marriage by proposing reasons why the U.S. government should legalize marriages between all genders. Samuel Faktorow is a graduate of Colorado College with a degree in English and Drama. This article was published on November 18^th, 2014, less than a year before the Supreme Court legalized the issue. 

Faktorow uses parody as an element of satire in order to prove that same-sex marriage should be legalized. He mimics Jonathon Swift's essay for similar effects of that of Swift's. Swift's writing, already satirically structured, writes a comprehensive lists composed of six reasons why the Irish population should eat children. In Faktorow's proposal, he explains the different reasons why same-sex marriage would be beneficial for our country. This helps solidify and simplify the points Faktorow is making for his readers. Specifically, it breaks down the issue in a way that seems that this is the most obvious and productive solution. Like Swift, Faktorow is trying to prove to the government how they need to get a hold of themselves and face the elephant in the room. Unlike Swift, Faktorow is more direct (and more practical) with his suggestions to change the policies.

This essay is effective in proving its purpose. I especially like how he concluded his essay with a person touch. He states “Though I do have some personal interest in this matter, being a homosexual male, I confess that I have no desire to ever get married to anyone, so whether or not people choose to accept my proposal is of rather low importance to me” (Faktorow). To me, this appeals to my emotional connection to the author, as now I understand he has experienced this oppression first hand (This also establishes credibility). Overall, “A 21^st Century Modest Proposal” would impress Mr. Swift if he were around today.

TOW #9 - Harambe, A Dead Gorilla, Got Over 15,000 Votes For President Of The Uniteds States

http://www.snopes.com/harambe-15000-votes/

After this Wednesday's election, all of America seems to be in a debacle on just how the polls were so inaccurate. One possibility proposed was that of people voting for third parties. Well, after reading this article, it is probable that third parties weren't the only things that kept U.S. citizens from voting for Trump or Clinton. In fact, the write-in ballot may have caused such faultiness.

This article was written by Dan Evon, editor and chief and co-founder of Social News Daily. Dan's article receives him more than 2.5 million internet views per month. Dan wrote this article to explain how it is uncertain that 15,000 is an accurate number of how many people who actually voted for Harambe in the past election, but we can make a ball-park estimation that it's somewhere around there.

The author establishes his purpose quoting others' tweets and blogs. He quotes David Leavitt, as well as Men's Humor. By doing this, Evon gives way to explaining how people could have received untruthful information from the media. People and companies with big following may have heard of these numbers officially, or they could have easily made them up. It is hard to say with such little information from any direct sources. Dan is able to explain to his readers how things could get misinterpretated by reviewing the events of Tuesday night.

Dan is able to show the ridiculousness of this situation while relieving the hostility of many democrats. He does this by appealing to logic and explaining why this alleged incident could be false. It is reassuring to hear that America did not waste as many votes on this as I heard rumored. I condemn Evon on posting an article that articulates what REALLY happened and understand why he has such ethos via the internet.

TOW #8 - A Fisherman And His Beautiful First Mate, On The Run In 'Girl From Venice'

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/497840054/a-fisherman-and-his-beautiful-first-mate-on-the-run-in-girl-from-venice

I read a book review by Bethanne Patrick for my TOW this week. Patrick has a vast resume, which includes her own television show on PBS, "The Book Studio", a master degree in English from the University of Virginia and 3 published books. Interestingly enough, Patrick also is the founder of the hashtag on Twitter, "#FridayReads". In this review, she talks about Martin Cruz Smith's latest book, 'Girl From Venice', a fiction piece that take place during the Nazi-Germany time. Her purpose is to critique it and give readers a brief overview of what the book is about. She seems to be giving the book a positive recommendation, endorsing and praising Cruz Smith’s writing through her own writing.

Patrick uses specific diction to help her incorporate her purpose. She comments, "Suspense, romance, spying, action — this novel has a little bit of everything, and it works". Through her use of Asyndeton, Patrick is able to list the things she felt important to the novels. The fact that there are multiple descriptions that contrast from each other shows that "Girl from Venice" has a lot in store for a large audience. By opening her sentence with this, it also gives suspense and excitement to what the book entails. This is strategic of her, as by conveying that "Girl from Venice" caters to a variety of different people, she is able to better persuade her audience to consider reading the novel.

Bethanne Patrick is sufficient at proving her purpose. She explores the books different characters, important events and genre, all whilst not giving away any spoilers. It is obvious she enjoyed reading the novel and this is inflected in her tone. Overall, she does well at persuading her audience to read the novel.

TOW #8 - A Fisherman And His Beautiful First Mate, On The Run In 'Girl From Venice'

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/497840054/a-fisherman-and-his-beautiful-first-mate-on-the-run-in-girl-from-venice

I read a book review by Bethanne Patrick for my TOW this week. Patrick has a vast resume, which includes her own television show on PBS, "The Book Studio", a master degree in English from the University of Virginia and 3 published books. Interestingly enough, Patrick also is the founder of the hashtag on Twitter, "#FridayReads". In this review, she talks about Martin Cruz Smith's latest book, 'Girl From Venice', a fiction piece that take place during the Nazi-Germany time. Her purpose is to critique it and give readers a brief overview of what the book is about. She seems to be giving the book a positive recommendation, endorsing and praising Cruz Smith’s writing through her own writing.

Patrick uses specific diction to help her incorporate her purpose. She comments, "Suspense, romance, spying, action — this novel has a little bit of everything, and it works". Through her use of Asyndeton, Patrick is able to list the things she felt important to the novels. The fact that there are multiple descriptions that contrast from each other shows that "Girl from Venice" has a lot in store for a large audience. By opening her sentence with this, it also gives suspense and excitement to what the book entails. This is strategic of her, as by conveying that "Girl from Venice" caters to a variety of different people, she is able to better persuade her audience to consider reading the novel.

Bethanne Patrick is sufficient at proving her purpose. She explores the books different characters, important events and genre, all whilst not giving away any spoilers. It is obvious she enjoyed reading the novel and this is inflected in her tone. Overall, she does well at persuading her audience to read the novel.

TOW #7 - H.I.V. Arrived in the U.S. Long Before 'Patient Zero'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/health/hiv-patient-zero-genetic-analysis.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

I read an article from the New York Times entitled "H.I.V. Arrived in the U.S. Long Before 'Patient Zero'". In this article, the arrival of the Aids epidemic in the United States is explored, and the original hypothesis of how it spread is proven wrong. Donald McNeil Jr., science and health journalist of the New York Times, wrote this. In 1975, he graduated summa cum laude from University of California, Berkeley (with a bachelor's degree in rhetoric!). McNeil is a critically acclaimed expert on this subject, being featured in the documentary Fire In The Blood, which focused on AIDS and drug use.

One thing the author does to achieve his purpose is giving background information. He defines the alleged 'Patient Zero': Gaetan Dugas, a French-Canadian flight attendant who was blamed for bring HIV from Haiti and Africa over to the U.S. This is valuable information, as if readers needed clarity on the meaning of the title, it is introduced if the opening statements of the article. Later, he tells about how there was flaws in the earlier investigations, as Dugas was labelled 'Patient O' for 'Outside California', NOT '0'. This is crucial to refuting the fact that Dugas was the "founder" of AIDS in the U.S. Through this, we are able to have an enhanced awareness of why the recent discovers described are so groundbreaking.

I think McNeil achieved his purpose. He cites credibly sources (scientists, doctors, historians), whose researches are recent and up to date. In this way, we are able to understand the fundamental facts behind the recent discoveries of how AIDS infected up to 500,000 Americans. He emphasizes numbers and years as a way to put things into perspectives for the readers, helping them to better understand the complex ideas in the article. Overall, McNeil’s use of the rhetoric was effective.

TOW #6 - Outliers: the Story of Success (IRB)

Recently, I finished my IRB, Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. I enjoyed it! This book, labelled as a "Psychology Non-fiction piece", was written for the purpose of analyzing various situation in which people defied lines of becoming accomplished. Most of Gladwell’s books are academic works, often focusing on areas of sociology and psychology. Outliers was published on November 18^th, 2008, and is deemed one of Gladwell’s better works.

One rhetorical device that was quite evident throughout the book is Gladwell's allusions to previous ideas. Each chapter discusses a different study that explores the examples of "outliers" seen in society. Gladwell aligns previously mentioned studies to demonstrate how there are common patterns at which guarantee success. For example, one study that showed up frequently was that of the proof kids born into privileged households are better advocates for themselves as compared to lower-classed children. He referenced the two children who were part of this study by name in order to make a more lasting and memorable idea. By referring to this study multiple times, and by strategically placing this chapter before ones that could be connected back to it, Gladwell better enforces his argument onto his audience.

I think that Malcolm Gladwell makes an effective and consistent argument in Outliers. I especially thought his concluding chapter, in which he uses the anecdote of his mother’s journey to the United States, was a good tie in of all the things he discussed. From the surface, if you just observe the facts, Gladwell’s mother may seem to be a complete outlier to the system; she is an immigrant from a poor part of Taiwan, whose parents had no money to send both her and her twin sister to university. But, as Gladwell refuted, these were not the only factors that took a role in Joyce Gladwell’s success story. I would recommend this book to any of my peers who are looking for an intellectually stimulating, quick read!

TOW #5 - The 21st Century Playgraund

This cartoon is by Mike Keefe, an American political cartoonist whose most credited work has been published in The Denver Post. In 2011, Keefe won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning. He was educated at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Stanford University. I found his cartoons on the AAEC, or the Association of American Editorial Cartoonist

In this cartoon, the issue of Internet use at a young age is depicted. Keefe displays the harming effects of Mobile devices via dialogue. There is one kid that 'texts' another, "Yo, Dude, Waddup widat round thing next to your foot?". He is referring to the soccer drawn next to him. Keefe illustrates a confused child looking at the ball in awe in response to the text. The kid obviously was too busy looking at his phone to even release it was there. This demonstrates the carelessness and distraction brought on by phones. Further, the fact that he thinks "?" shows that he is unfamiliar with the object. A soccer ball, a symbol of the American childhood for athleticism and playfulness, is being identified as foreign, showing the loss of activeness and childlike enthusiasm brought on by technology.

The 21st Century Playground is adamant at displaying its purpose. Keefe wants to show that as technology begins to effect younger and younger age groups, soon children will no longer pursue regular "kid-friendly" activities. In my opinion, the audience this is most relevant to is parents of Elementary-aged kids. Keefe wants us to recognize that mobile devices are more than just a piece of equipment; they offer a different world of social media inside of them. If I were a parent, I would take the warning of this image and not allow my child to be consumed by this world at such a young age. It is scary to imagine that kids these days are more interested by screens than they are of games and physical interactions with other kids.