TOW #23: "Obama's Call To End Tragedies Angers Pro-Tragedy Wing In Congress"

Have politics become too convoluted? Does it ever seem that some politicians aren't entirely "for" the United States? Andy Borowitz believes so. Borowitz is a New York Times best-selling author and comedian who has been very highly praised for his satirical column in The New Yorker. In this article of The Borowitz Report from January 29th of this year, the author, Andy Borowitz, seizes the opportunity to make a point about politics today through humor. Borowitz describes how "pro-tragedy" politicians were angered by President Obama's vow to try to stop tragedies. The article, though short, is extremely effective. The purpose of this article is to expose the ridiculousness that has developed in American politics. Ideally, all American politicians, particularly congressmen and congresswomen, should be trying to improve America. However, Borowitz exposes the fact that many congresspeople might not be as ideal as one might hope. The audience of Borowitz's article includes any and all American citizens and politicians who care about the future of America and how America is governed. To achieve his purpose, Borowitz employs several rhetorical devices such as fabricated quotes, and primarily, satire. The quotes Borowitz intersperses, such as one from "Senator David Vitter" accuses President Obama of using "divisive and inflammatory anti-tragedy rhetoric." The brilliance of this quote is how politically realistic it sounds. Though the article clearly uses satire, the language of the fake quotes he uses sounds so similar to typical political jabber: foggy, accusatory, and mildly convoluted. This reinforces the satire Borowitz uses. This satire, for which Borowitz is so highly acclaimed, is what really helps him to achieve his purpose. Why would anyone be "pro-tragedy"? The entire article is ridiculous and brilliant. Of course, no politician is ever "pro-tragedy," but this leads the reader to conclude that perhaps some views held by politicians are "un-American" and downright absurd. Overall, the author effectively conveyed his message about politics. 

TOW #22: "How will life extension transform punishment?"

What is worse– death, or an eternity in jail? Ross Anderson says the latter.

http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/should-biotech-make-life-hellish-for-criminals/?src=longreads

For quite a while now, capital punishment has been controversial. But what about a new type of punishment that might exist sometime in the future involving living in prison for quite a while, even more than a lifetime? Philosopher and editor Ross Anderson sets out to investigate this very question. Anderson interviews philosopher Rebecca Roache about the ethics of never-ending punishment for "super-criminals" such as Adolf Hitler. The purpose of this article is to make the reader consider the ethics of punishment in the future. The audience includes anyone who knows anyone who might be facing federal punishment any time in the future or anyone who is interested in justice and morality. To achieve his purpose, Anderson uses historical examples, employs a chronological format, and writes in first-person. Anderson poses a hypothetical situation that fits perfectly with his topic: If Adolf Hitler hadn't committed suicide, how would he have been punished? This allows Anderson to transition into the idea of an "endless" prison experience. Perhaps Hitler would receive a life sentence for every one of the millions of people he killed, meaning he would serve as long as possible. Anderson argues that given the lifespan-extending techniques that wait sometime in the future, a Hitler-level punishment might be possible. By posing this hypothetical historical example, Anderson is able to transition into his interview with Roache. He uses a question-answer format to understand Roache's perspective on the endless sentence that Anderson has proposed might exist in the future. This format allows Anderson to maintain a clear, straight-forward approach to answering such a broad, difficult-to-approach topic. Also, Anderson chose to move through his essay chronologically. First, he talks about Hitler, then current punishment standards, and finally the potential future of punishment. The last device Anderson uses has more to do with how he presents his essay. He uses a first-person perspective to make the essay flow more easily. This format makes the essay feel a little more casual, which is very important considering how "out-there" this topic is. Overall, Anderson effectively presented the idea of extended punishments.

TOW #21: IRB Post

The financial crisis of 2008 left many people distraught and even more confused, which is why Michael Lewis wrote The Big Short.

http://politic365.com/2011/04/20/why-so-quiet-on-threat-to-our-national-credit-rating/

When I began reading The Big Short by Michael Lewis, I was a bit uncertain what exactly I was getting into. I thought I would be reading a book purely about finances and economics. That isn't exactly the case. The Big Short is laid out in chapters, but it's sectioned off by different people. Every 15 or so pages, a new character is explained and introduced. This layout creates a very "layered" form of reading; first, I learned about Steven Eisman in detail, particularly about his involvement in subprime mortgage and later the "defaulting" of loans and the scam of a company called Household Finance Corporation. In the next section, not necessarily chapter, however, Lewis discusses Michael Burry, a highly-driven medical student who successfully drove his way into Wall Street. So far, both Eisman and Burry have something enormous in common: both men began in another career and found themselves dealing and trading on Wall Street. Eisman was a lawyer while Burry was a neurologist. Both abandoned their respectable careers to pursue their interest in the stock market. The appeal is obvious, and well-put by Burry himself: "[A stock] could only fall to zero, but it could rise to infinity." The purpose of The Big Short is to explain the financial crisis of 2008. So far, Lewis has used several rhetorical devices and strategies to achieve his purpose, including analogies and anecdotes. When trying to explain the tranches or a mortgage loan and repayment, Lewis compares each tranche to a new floor of a building. The lowest floor will be "flooded" first (meaning the person with this tranche will be the first to have to pay back their debt, then the second lowest, and so on. This analogy, along with the many others Lewis uses, serve to explain difficult-to-understand economic terms to the average reader. Without this explanation, readers would be lost and unable to follow Lewis's logic. By including specific, entertaining anecdotes, the author makes The Big Short feel less like an informational book but rather like an entertaining novel. This gives The Big Short added drama and sparks the readers interest. As of this point in The Big Short, Michael Lewis has effectively prepared himself to accomplish his purpose. 

TOW #20: "Save water. Save life."

Reading goal: Since this is a visual text, I want to carefully analyze all factors.
Writing goal: I want to write clearly and concisely without leaving out important details and explanations.

Maybe next time you're about to make a water-wasting decision, you'll really consider the consequences.
http://kozar.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/best_ads.jpg

     Would we still waste water if we knew we were killing an animal? Is our comfort worth the suffering or even death of an innocent animal? This advertisement, sponsored by Percept, was published and distributed in India. Percept is an entertainment, media, and communications conglomerate. It was published under a project called "Venfield" along with several other environmental advertisements. The purpose of this advertisement is to convince its viewers not to waste water, and the audience, although intended to be the people of India, is actually everyone. To have its desired impact, the creator of this advertisement employed several strategies and devices.
     This advertisement depicts a goldfish in a fish bowl with a tap that is dripping water and the words "Save water. Save life." written to the right of the fish bowl.
     One of the devices used is shading. The right side of the image is dark gray and the left side of the image is clear, peaceful white. This shading is crucial. The goldfish is highlighted in clean, pure, innocent white, whereas the person loosening the tap, most likely coming from the right side of the advertisement, is dark and convoluted. The goldfish represents the animals that we hurt by wasting water and everyone, including the viewer, is the dark, unshown figure that keeps loosening the tap. This creates the feeling that us, the people of the world who use too much water, are wrong and dark, killing innocent animals.
     A small but important detail to point out is that the goldfish is watching the water it needs to survive drip uselessly from the tap. The fact that it is watching is enough to create a sense of guilt within the viewer. The goldfish, arguably the least intelligent animal, acknowledges that its environment is being taken.
     There are several details about the water in this advertisement that help to convey its message. Water drips into a puddle for no apparent reason. This represents waste. The fact that the goldfish's bowl is already more than halfway drained represents the amount of water the audience has already wasted. This setup elicits a feeling of desperation within the viewer. So much water has already been wasted, and soon there won't be much left for the goldfish (representing all innocence in the world).
     Overall, I believe this advertisement effectively convinces the viewer to, at the very least, consider his or her water usage, therefore achieving its purpose.