TOW #7 ObamaCare Is Taking On Water (Peggy Noonan)

Peggy Noonan was the speech writer and special assistant to Ronald Reagan, and has written five best-selling books regarding politics. She is a conservative, and in this article points out the recent faults concerning the Affordable Care Act's website. The website has been since October 1st, and is intended to make the process of signing up for federal health care simple and fast. Because of its heavy traffic, the site has crashed multiple times and is, currently, closed. Her purpose is to persuade the wide audience of the Wall Street Journal that "This is big history, not small. The ObamaCare rollout is a disaster." She does this with a biting tone, clearly opposed to ObamaCare. She asks rhetorical questions like "Does anyone believe the whole technology side can be fixed quickly?" and answers with a curt "No." Her opinion is clearly opposed to ObamaCare, and her confidence fuels agreement in her readers. Short sentences also emphasize her points throughout the article, such as when she says "So you'd think it would sort of work. And it didn't. Which is a disaster," and, after a comparison of ObamaCare to the Titanic, "The Titanic. Some will see his comments as disloyal. Actually they were candid and realistic." These quick sentences summarize and quickly deliver her point of view, to be further elaborated in the sentences to come. To add to her tone and emphasis, Noonan includes small asides, such as "But–it has to be repeated–they had 3 1/2 years" and "Three and a half years!" to convey her contempt directly to her audience. Anaphora is also present to create better flow and connect her ideas. She writes that ObamaCare is a disaster, "not a problem or a challenge or an embarrassment, not a gaffe or a bad few weeks." Lastly, Noonan uses several allusions to make her points creative and relatable. The confusing website is "like a high-tech Möbius strip," a shape that winds around and always returns to it's starting position. The political cartoon above her article and her title point to her allusion of ObamaCare as the Titanic, though "The Titanic at least had three good days." I think that her article is not very effective, because the tone makes it seem as though she is just whining without proposing any sort of solution. She uses far too many rhetorical questions that make the article seem too based on assumptions and opinion.

Article

TOW #6 Put a Little Science in Your Life (Brian Greene)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01greene.html?pagewanted=all

Brian Greene is a professor of physics at Columbia University, and one of the top researchers in quantum mechanics and String Theory. He is very dedicated to making these complex topics accessible through TED Talks, shows on NOVA, and several best-selling books. In this opinion piece, he considers the present importance of science, but the inability of schools to interest and engage students. He addresses people who are not generally interested in science, and explains why the way science is taught is ineffective, how it can be done better, and why it is important to think about in everyday life. He begins with anecdotal evidence of the significance of science: a soldier in Baghdad who was inspired by Greene's book on quantum physics because "it revealed a deeper reality of which we're all apart." This anecdote is particularly striking because it "might strike you as, well, odd" according to Greene. We generally pity soldiers and their situation, and are inspired when they find hope in something. This anecdote is one of many; Greene also describes his kids as proof that we are all born natural scientists. This applies to all parents and presents the logical argument that if kids have an inherent interest in science, something must change their opinion. Greene defines the "pedagogical approach" to science: that topics must be mastered chronologically. He then refutes this by saying this approach leads to the idea that "the verticality of science is unassailable." Having defined a problem and identified its faults, Greene then presents a solution, allowing students to view the "cutting-edge insights and discoveries" to foster their curiosity. This simple approach is well structured and appeals to logos for his audience. Greene also uses several comparisons in his essay, comparing science to curriculums in music and other liberal arts. These subjects are supposedly those preferred to science, so this comparison is very relevant. Lastly, Greene conveys his own passion by describing himself as a "practicing scientist" (a gross understatement) and using examples he can describe with genuine interests. For example, he describes stars as the result of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, "nuclear furnaces," and the makeup of only 4 percent of the enormous universe. I think the essay is very well done, because it appeals so well to his audience. He has logical organization and clearly demonstrates his credibility.


I am a huge fan of Dr. Greene. If you would like your mind blown, he has some incredible TED talks:

TOW #5 Join or Die (Ben Franklin)

This political cartoon is considered one of, if not the, most famous political cartoons in American history. It was presented by Ben Franklin in the Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9th, 1754. Ben Franklin was one of America's founding fathers, a polymath who was deeply involved in American politics. This political cartoon was released just before the Albany Congress, the first attempt at American unity before the French and Indian War. Representatives from seven colonies congregated to decided on a united defense against Indians and the French. Ben Franklin was a powerful proponent of intercolonial relations, and used this cartoon to convince colonists that unification was necessary. The cartoon appeals to ethos simply because it was published by one of the leading minds in American society in one of the most popular newspapers in the colonies. It may be considered propaganda, as it relies very heavily on an appeal to pathos. Specifically, it targets a universal fear of death. It narrows the choices of colonists to options, automatically creating an ultimatum for any reader. The idea of death is terrifying, especially to those who face danger from the French, Indians, disease, hunger, and several other pressures of the 18th century. Why a snake? Franklin may be alluding to the Bible, saying that the US is a snake that could serve as the downfall of France (and later England), just as the Devil did to Eve in the Bible. It may mean something completely different, however, as there was a common myth in colonial America concerning a snake. A snake, chopped into segments, was believed to have the ability to revive itself its body parts were all connected together. This then proposes a logical argument and metaphor, that America can join together and be revived, or its many individual parts will perish. Because this cartoon has become so famous, and has been used in several situations where a united America is needed, I think it is clearly effective. It relies heavily on pathos, but I do not think it is quite propaganda, given the intentions and intelligence of its creator. It provides logic very concisely, and therefore fulfills the purpose of a political cartoon.

TOW #4: How the Market Can Rein in Tuition Costs (Dave Girouard)

Dave Girouard has many years of experience in business and economics, serving as President of Google Enterprise and currently running the crowd-funding business Upstart. With such experience with money, Girouard takes a look at the rising tuition of many colleges, and explains the "pay it forward theory" as a better alternative to standard tuition, where alumni pay a percent of their salaries to their alma mater for several years or decades. Tuition costs have increased to 500% of what they were in 1985 (Notte). This trend has popularized student loans, of which $1.2 trillion defaults. To combat this, Oregon state universities have changed their tuition policies, so that students pay 3% of their tuition for the first 20 years after they graduate. Girouard defends this policy and tries to convince the general public (and perhaps future college students) that this method needs some improvement, but can be a much more practical approach to paying for college. Girouard begins by establishing the context of his argument, explaining how high current tuitions are how prevalent student loan debt is. He then describes the "Pay It Forward, Pay It Back" method that Oregon State has employed and its credibility via the influential people (two senators) who support the plan. This serves to bias the audience by appealing to ethos before Girouard even introduces his thesis. He argues that the program needs some tweaking, but first concedes to the benefits of the plan: it's always affordable and high-earners will do more to support their school. He then proposes a rhetorical question that is not necessarily effective, but introduces his opinion in style. The rest of the essay is an appeal to logos, beginning with a comparison of present methods and "paying it forward." For example, he explains that students today must pick high-earning majors because they will create jobs that can pay off the lones. By taking a small percentage of a salary, students in the future will have no encouragement to pursue those high-earning majors. Girouard concludes his essay with several rhetorical questions, each of which describe his proposed modifications to the "pay it forward plan." Overall, I think the essay was well-argued and accomplished his purpose. Girouard's use of concession and logic do prove his point, and the use of rhetorical questions was interesting. He used economic jargon that I could not really follow, so I think he should have considered a more general audience.



Article
Citation