TOW #20 - President Trump Is Skipping The White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/trump-skipping-whca?utm_term=.xplq6KdGl#.lq8oPz3yM

"The annual, celebrity-studded WHCA dinner has long been criticized as a display of too-cozy relations between the media and people they are supposed to cover fairly and critically. It usually involves a comedian or master of ceremonies roasting the president, and then president responding in kind."

This week, Donald Trump has become the first president after Nixon to not attend the White House's Correspondents' Association Dinner. To President Trump, this dinner promotes such "Fake News" he has spread awareness to during his campaign. News reporters like the New York Times, NBC News, and CNN will be in attendance.

Tom Namako makes the claim that Trump is not attending this dinner because his views on the media and how it illustrates himself as a political leader. I agree with Namako. I think that part of Trump’s failure to gain support from most medias sources is the way he handles criticism. It seems that whenever the President is critiqued, he has to shoot back with a tweet or a snarky retort. Take Meryl Streep’s acceptance speech at the Golden Globes, for instance. When Streep spoke out about how it is troubling to know that someone who is that insensitive to disabled people could be representing our country, instead of responding to Streep with an apology, or even a rational behind his earlier claims, Trump instead felt the need to tweet about it, like a teenage girl. He said something along the lines that Streep was an overrated actress, and how her comments were violent.

I think that, when examining what makes Trump and other inefficient leaders weak is that of their use of the rhetoric. Maintaining ethos at all cost should be essential for anyone politics, especially towards those who opposed your views. If this is not practiced, people will dislike one not just because they disagree with them, but because they think one put their emotions in the way of their craft.

TOW #19 - Dear Evan Hansen makes Top 10

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7694135/billboard-200-chart-moves-dear-evan-hansen-hamilton

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7694135/billboard-200-chart-moves-dear-evan-hansen-hamilton

In a weekly update of the top albums purchased and consumed, Billboard music makes mention of frequency of Broadway musical cast albums on this chart. Dear Evan Hansen has become the Hamilton equivalent of the year. So far, the cast and crew has sold about 29,000 albums, putting them at number 8, (behind Lady Gaga and Rebal McEntire).

In the article, Keith Caulfield, co-director of charts at Billboard, writes of the past musicals to make the top 40. This list is small, with the inclusion of Hamilton (obviously), The Book of Mormon, and Hair. Caulfield argues that in order to have this degree of success as a Musical soundtrack, a requirement of modernism is needed.

I agree with Caulfield’s argument. As a theater nerd myself, I am always aware of the differences between the “mainstream” musicals out, as suppose to the “hipster” musicals the me and my friends listen to. For example, I know a lot of people who listen to Hamilton despite not being into musicals at all. What makes this musical so popular is its similarities to modern-day music (as well as its historical accuracy, for some). That being said, I imagine if I showed these non-theater people the soundtrack to Sunday in The Park with George or Evita, they would not show the same enthusiasm.

Caulfield uses inductive reasoning to reach his argument. First, he mentions specific musical titles, like Hamilton, Hair and Dear Evan Hansen. Next, he tells us what these scores have in common. He draws the conclusion that all the top musicals are also the most similar to the top music on the radio. Finally, Caulfield synthesizes that all the Musicals to make the top 40 display a commonality of conventionalism, and because of this, in general, musicals that have “pop” sounding scores are more successful.

TOW #18 - They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky (IRB)

Judy A. Bernstein writes of the tragic events that took place during the Sudan Civil War in the autobiography, "They Poured Fire on Us from the Sky". This accredited book tells the story of three boys, Benson, Alephonsion, and Benjamin, the three of them brothers and cousins. These "lost boys" were sent across the world from Sudan to Ethiopia and Kenya in order to escape the terrible conditions of their hometown. The book is structured with alternating passages narrated by each of the three boys' perspectives.
Found in the title, the author plays allegory of the children's story, "Peter Pan" when often referring to the three boys as "lost". This comparison is genius, as it displays just how young the boys were when having to flee the country, and contrasts with the immature nature of the "lost boys" in Peter Pan. Another rhetorical device used in the book is vivid imagery. When describing the events, the boys do not shy away from telling the horrible truth. Benson describes the journey in saying "We could feel our bones trying to exhibit themselves to the world. Everything around us looked ugly and wild. We couldn't find happiness in ourselves, and no one could put it in us." This appeals to the audiences Pathos using upsetting and bleak diction. It also adds to tending the purpose: to display and bring awareness to the underprivileged countries in our world.

Before hearing of this book, to be completely honest, I did not even know of the Sudan Civil War. It is not commonly taught in History classes (at least Wissahickon’s history classes), so I felt a little ignorant to the situation, especially after reading the first view chapters. I am a prime example of why this book is so important in all its arguments. I hope in the future that I can have a voice in helping weaker nation who may experience similar cruelty such as the ones faced in Sudan.

TOW #17 - Beyonce's Pregnancy Photoshoot

In the midst of this week, it was announcing that the multi-millionaire couple, Beyonce and Jay-Z, are expecting twins! The news has spread all over the media, celebrating and anticipating the birth of "Queen B"'s second and third child. Along with the release of the announcement, an album of a collection of photos of the artist has also infected the media. Besides it being beautiful and perfectly timed (well played, B), the photo shoot also employs many rhetorical strategies used to prove the artist's central claim that she has "Three Hearts".

First off, Beyonce is sporting her wedding val. This reveals that she is still in a committed relationship with her husband, as well as further entailing she is keeping her vows. Beyonce is wearing her undergarments, showing that she (and other women) can still be beautiful and youthful although pregnant and a mother, which defies the stereotypes of what an expecting-mother should feel. The background of flowers could be suggesting the natural beauties that life has to offer. This shows how Beyonce values the patterns of nature and draws a metaphor of "the flowers blooming" and her twins growing. With her hands on her stomach, Beyonce shows the closeness and gives off nurturing body language between her and her babies.

Overall, Beyonce’s photoshoot “I Have Three Hearts” is intellectually sculpted to grab the media’s attention. It reveals Beyonce as a mother, as well as shows the underlying message that motherhood is beautiful and should be cherished. Like so many other famous people, she wants to show her audience and followers that she experiences many of the same aspects of life, despite being a celebrity. It seems apparent in many aspects that generally, famous artists want to be recognized as people too. Specifically, Beyonce points out through her pregnancy that she lives an ordinary (and perhaps a little glamorous) life.

TOW #16 - How Not to Die (IRB - Second Post)

When it comes to health, you would be surprised how much nutrition factors into the prevention of many common diseases. Dr. Michael Gregor, an internationally-renowned nutrition expert and founder of nutritionfacts.org would attest to this. An advocate of a plant-based, herbivore diet, Gregor takes his readers illness by illness in proving that the "standard American diet" is really standard for disease. He examines 10 of the most common leading causes of death in book How Not to Die.

Gregor not only shows the fault in our diet and perception on health, but he also recommends substitute products in place of the "garbage we call food". For example, prostate cancer is linked to the consumption of cow’s milk (which makes sense, as their milk was not meant for us to digest). If we eliminate dairy from our diet, and replace it with a tablespoon of flaxseed a day, any hereditary linkage to this type of cancer can be avoided.

It is easy to turn a blind eye to things that do not affect us in the present. For example, if you do not have breast cancer, it might be hard to imagine having it; ergo, steps taken to avoid it may seem unnecessary. In addition, people do not like to do things outside of their comfort zone. If you have grown up on cheese and assorted meats, it might seem impossible to live without it. This makes Dr. Michael Gregor’s argument more challenging (and all the more important) to attack. In teaching an audience who might not see the long term effects of a healthy lifestyle, it’s important that you are forward, but not too complicated with your presented evidence. Gregor does just this. He presents his findings and explains their significance, adding just enough detail to earn him credibility while not being too complicated.

How Not to Die is the perfect book for people who are interested in improving their health but are unsure how to go about this (which is quite fitting for the New Year)!

TOW #15 - Professor misses class thinking school starts next week (Satire)

With the current semester at colleges and university starting off, The Oakland Post leaves room for humor. In "Professor misses class thinking school starts next week". student Nowshin Chowdhury writes a story describing a mishap at Oakland University in order to satirize a society's principals. She uses irony and parody as a way to make evident to her audience the ridiculousness of our emphasis on school.

She uses irony when writing, “I am not in denial,” professor Ian Denyle said to his wife on Jan. 4. “School starts next week. I’m still on vacation. Oakland is a great institution that recognizes our hard work and rewards us with much-deserved, long holiday breaks.” Obviously, the professor has said the opposite of the outcome of him missing the first day of class, thus satirizing teachers for being miss informed. In case of parody, the whole article is filled with specific times, like so: "At 4:20, students left the room, and the lights went out in the empty classroom." This kind of specifies gives off the effect that the manner is serious and that exact times are crucial to the situation. Chowdhury does this as a way to ridicule her readers of college students, who might feel worked up over the little details of their current schedule.

Nowshin Chowdhury proves to be a successful writer in the field of satire, a talent very admirable for someone of collegiate-age. She remains respectful with her subjects, while poking fun at them and their need to stress over their education. I think a great tie in to the theme of this essay is to quote Mr. Yost: “Relax; it’s just school.”

TOW #14 - To Help the World's Poor, Give Them Real Jobs

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-07/to-help-the-worlds-poor-give-them-real-jobs

In a country with arguably the richest humans, Charles Kenny makes the argument that this make poverty in turn, inevitable. The U.S. unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, which is seemly lower than that of the national average (6 percent). How can we change this? Kenny suggests that we create an environment with self-employed jobs, like farming, are more prevalent.

In supporting his synthesis, Kenny uses comparison to the two countries, India and Pakistan. Kenny tells how in these countries, more families are able to be more self-sufficient in the job market. In turn, unemployment rate is less than 5 percent. Kenny uses logos in his argument to describe the tradeoffs of this difference in economy. For instance, he states "Survey evidence suggests that being in the bottom fifth of India’s income distribution means your children have around a 12 percent chance of dying before their fifth birthday, compared with a countrywide average of closer to 8 percent." By using statistics and giving information on how other countries improve in this specific area, the readers are able to have a better understanding on this complex subject.

I think Kenny makes a valid argument, although I notice that he does not cite any of his sources. Perhaps this is because he is a senior fellow at the Center of the Global Development, therefore does not see it necessary here. He also contradicts himself when comparing our economy to that of developing nations, and it seemed to weaken his stance and credibility. I would be curious to read more from this author.