cAn YoU eVeN wRiTe? (blog #6)

 Lets be honest, we really do struggle when  teachers ask  us to find rhetorical strategies. At least personally, I always feel  unsure as to what the teachers expect or if my rhetorical strategies are even accurate.I am guessing that it is hard to identify a rhetorical strategy as I read because I am too focused in identifying the claims, evidence and main topic, so I tend to ignore the methods/rhetorical strategies the author uses. 

Her reading was relatively easy to understand. Few concept and words I had to search but the general ideas were understood. However, I did not like how Thonney uses too many examples. Yeah, I know it does add credibility and makes it easier to understand,however I think it is overused in ideas where it is not necessary. For examples when she presents the 3rd point she provides 3 examples almost righ away and they can be kinda of tedious to read.      

I found a contradiction where I still don't have a clear point if teachers would accept. In her first general idea, where she speaks about " what others have written," Thonney  argues that an issues students face is that they  "fail to contribute to the conversation(page 45)" The author basically argues that all the students do is summarize. From my understanding Thonney urges for students to contribute and add on to the reading, yet whenever a students does that most teachers tend to deduct points for giving personal opinion and not following the prompt.I know it does depend on the prompt however thonney points are meant to apply to any writing , "general ideas of writing."Do i contribute? do I not?

It is interesting when thonney point out in her point #3  that when arguing authors tend to use terms  such as " suggest"  and  " it seems." Many of us probably do such things unintentionally. when you want to prove a point you want to seem convinced however stating something as a fact is dangerous because it gives a perception of close mind as opposed to the other terms which allow for disagreements and discussion.

Additionally, her point #5 caught my attention. Primarily because when I write, I like to sound smarter then I really am ( kind of fake, i know ). Honestly, alot of times it gets out of hand... I use complicated words that don't fit in given case. Hopefully, I did not do that in this blog and it is something I need to work on.Nevertheless, Thonney is right when she states that using these terms is an indicator of proficiency in academic writing and convey specialized meanings. See! That is why I like using complicated terms.

To windup this blog, Teresa Thonney accurately presents methods that students can use to improve their writing in almost any type of text.These methods are to improve our skills and write as we are expected, the college level.

Blog #5-exterminating solidarity

You know that feeling you get after you give a home less some money, help an old lady or simply open the door for someone else. That feeling of satisfaction and pleasure, it is natural. Humans are born with the desire to help others,it is our emotion, it is known as solidarity.

However, Chomsky claims that the wealthy only pursue the vile maxim, he even adds that that selfish characteristic is created and not born with. When Chomsky says " You have to drive that out of people's heads"(p.66). He was referring to the natural emotion of solidarity, the characteristics of the wealthy have been made to turn them into selfish followers of their own prosperity.I found this very interesting because no one is born with unethical characteristics ,it is not in our genetics.... they are characteristics that humans learn and catch on to.It is also very sad how a human can reach such level of cruelty where they have complete disregard for anyone else but themselves.

Chomsky proves that the masters of mankind chase their own wealth while purposely limiting the less fortunate through their attack on public education,privatization of medicare and the elimination of the government.

         - when he speaks about public education and the absurdity of the individual paying a huge amount  he is doing a partially detached observation, where he is not directing interacting with struggling college students in debt but he was able to live in 1945 when tuition was essentially free.
         - In the discussion of medicare, Chomsky is once again doing an observation. He is criticizing the privatization of such basic human right and exposing how it is widely desired right.
         -Finally, Chomsky makes another observation that the wealthy want to have full control of the system.

Although Chomsky's examples are solid and questionable the support is very weak.He is able to provide much more support in other areas of his book, however he did not provide as much evidence as he could have.He does present examples however I keep in mind that these our his observation rather than proven facts. Nevertheless, what he does present is enough to convince a large amount of people.

Chomsky's main strategies is division/classification and loaded language.He divides each aspect that the wealthy attack so that he can analyze it and explain it. Additionally,  it can clearly be observed how the masters of mankind pursue the vile maxim.On the other hand, the loaded language is probably the most important. Chomsky , quotes what the wealthy would think "why should I pay taxes so that my neighbor can benefit." That is some very strong language, it sets a very cruel and selfish perception of the wealthy.Most importantly , Chomsky language makes distorts our view of the system. At least personally it made me view the education system as a disgrace.His audience are people who are directly affected by these features that the wealthy are attacking therefore his language strongly appeals to our emotions.

*picture is irrelevant

AMURICA

A government by the people and for the people. The constitution declares that the Government founded was intended to be fully democratic; rest all the power in the hands of the people.

I find it interesting how Madison was not selfish when creating the constitution.Chomsky states the theory that the constitution was set up to prevent democracy, while giving a sense of hope to the poor that they have control.Although this sounds like a scam and huge conspiracy lie, if this was true... then I find it astonishing how Madison's purpose was to vest the power in the rich since they can make the best decision for the entire community.These are called "special classes."

Although his original purpose was not entirely democratic it was not structured to harm the poor. I would have expect for Madison to create a constitution that entirely benefits the rich and purposely harms the poor. Yet that is not the case, Madison wants a constitution that makes America progress and truly excel.

Madison's original intent of the constitution connects to Aristotle writings of government system. Both favor democracy but are able to see through the general issue that comes with it.However, the distinct solutions are both polar ends.Madison is to reduce democracy;give more power to the special classes, while Aristotle is to reduce inequality;close the huge gap between the upper and the lower classes.

I cant really say that Chomsky or Madison are crazy because they are reasonable arguments  and if you observe society it does seem to be run by special classes with a huge inequality gap.On the other hand Aristotle arguments perfections the intended government. If the inequality gap closed down the working class would not try to snatch the wealth of some hard working prosperous people and they would hopefully understand why some people are best suited to run the decisions of the government.

In conclusion, I do agree with the controversy on democracy.If democracy was in effect then there would be no significantly wealthy people in the united states, since their prosperity would be spread out evenly.However giving fake hope to the working class, hope of democracy which is not there ... is not correct.It is a grey area where I cant take a stand whether democracy is the ultimate best system.

On a completely different topic here....I really enjoy reading opposing views and criticisms because they help you observe stuff you may have not noticed.Nevertheless, I do think Chomsky is too radical. He does not seem to see any type of hope or benefit in the American system.Yeah, it is reasonably to say that a big part of the system is wrong or simply failing however there is positive stuff about this structure, there is prosperity and America is not all corrupt.At least Chomsky does recognize the recent democratic victories of the social classes, yet he doesn't clearly state if these are fundamental to creating a better system, he doesn't really say anything about them. Yet he does see failure in the constitution, he sees failure in the economic system, he sees failure in social classes, he sees failure in corporation and I am sure that as we read the book we will find a flaw in almost EVERY single aspect of United States government.


Canada has nothing to do here , yet they are very nice people :)

MEDIAocre

If I were to tell you that unicorns were real..... it would probably be very hard to believe. However if the media announced it as a single statement not backed up by any source , it would be a widespread "fact."

It is completely surprising and quiet disappointing that society tends to believe anything announced by the media. I understand it is our source of information across the globe, however they are very biased. Only airing exactly what they want to be seen.

Additionally, they only say what they want others to hear.

Jones brings up an interesting point when she says "On news shoes, we encounter a version of argument that seems more like a circus than a public discussion."She could not have said it better. Politicians are masters of allusions, they  can dodge any question by simply  changing the subject in a very subtle way. They seem to answer the question by rephrasing the question or raising attention for a bigger issue.

Megan Kelly always did her best efforts to defend Trump's reputation. When questioned about political statements, ideologies, or actions she always found a way around the questions. Many of the hosts were outraged and asked her to simply answer the question and she would continue to move around the central argument.

It is especially sad that politics is  seen as a game or "circus." These political men and women are supposed to represent us and form the laws that protect us, yet they cant even articulate an educated argument among themselves when controversial issues come to light?However it is equally sad that new shows  cant argue with politicians since they have the important role of communicating to the world. If they were to structure well arguments and directly question politicians our policy making would be efficient and corruption would decrease.

I cant think of any other solution other than directly and publicly questioning news shows and politicians. It is now clear that directly asking them a question wont produce much result, however when done with boldness, publicly and consistently they have two options. Answering the question, or national embarrassment.Jon Stewart is a great example of comically and very passively questioning the host of CNN "crossfire." They were clearly very uncomfortable, as a result CNN today is criticized for its lack of coverage and biased news.

This issue is also part of our daily lives. When two individuals disagree (on a simple idea) it is very difficult for either of them to discuss it, prove their point , acknowledge the opposing view and perhaps come to a middle ground.This is just a small example of the larger scale to which lack of argumentation is terrifying.

It is the right of every american to argue.It is no different than Freedom of speech. The constitution gave us that right to declare any statement we want, however that does not make our statement correct. In fact, freedom of speech  pleads for  arguments of opposing views to share ideas and discuss issues.Prior to learning freedom of speech Americans need to learn the art of argument.