AOW 15

War Really Is Going Out of Style

New York Times

Joshua S. Goldstein and Steven Pinker

Authors:

Goldstein is a Professor of International Relations and award winning author of a book Winning the War on War, and has written an internationally acclaimed textbook called International Relations. Pinker Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of seven books.

Summary:

Quite clearly, as stated in the title, the authors are argueing that the affinity nations had towards war is on a decline. They say that in no way is it impossible, but statistics show that the sheer number of wars, as calculated 1000 deaths in one year, has dropped. Other than the current battle between the United States and Iraq, which they state is coming to a close, they do not see any imminent wars in the future. Their support? They believe the reason is that it is simly no longer profitable. When there were huge land gains to be had, and nations to be colonized, war reaped huge profit for the victors. However, they remind, today most nations' economies are based on trade, which is only hurt further by war.

Analysis:

The article seems to be a reflection of some optimistic American views that have been born in the context of the long awaited pulling of the troops from the Middle East. However, I believe an audience such as theirs that are active readers of the New York Times will be, and should be, a little sceptical. Despite strong backgrounds associated with Harvard and college text books, their ethos came into question. (This is my opinion) For well studied professors, I believe they have forgotten the point in studying history. We learn so we may identify patterns; one pattern that seems to come up incessantly is war. I also believe the theory, "we have nothing to gain" is completely unsupported. The world is still controlled by superpowers, and those superpowers will and are fighting to maintain control of resources. The gold is no longer just in land, but now in critical resources such as oil. Also, the premise that no other war is continuing is disproved by the very existance of the Arab Israeli conflict, where the battle still resides over land and borders are shifting "by force" every day. The cell phone cameras in that region all seem to mysteriously stopped working...

(sorry... not part of the analysis)

Rhetorical Devices:

Juxtaposition - Their arguement lies on the idea that the world has changed over the past decades, or centuries. They highlight this by contrasting wars and their prevalence in the past compared to today.

Repetition: They start off each point with a question they then proceed to argue. Their answer is often supported by refutations, warrants, and statistics.

Definition: They define both civil and international wars with set numbers so as to solify the line between skirmishes and wars.

AOW 14

9/11 Truth

The Organization:
A collaboration of scientists, architects, and unconvinced politicians banded together to look into the blatant and shady lies that the government has been feeding the public since 9/11. They create videos, have a website, and give lectures that use actual scientifically backed research and unarguable evidence to uncover the "truth" behind the event. 

(www.911truth.org )

Summary:
The video I watched was a taped lecture given by one of the leading architects, for whom the information given by the government was clearly false and illogical (for someone of his profession). He begins by introducing himself, the organization, their beliefs, and evidence. For two hours, he refutes claims made by the government so convincingly, they become airtight. Instead of flat out calling them wrong, he set up systematic diagram of the scientific method, and said that for the occasion to be staged every statement in the diagram must be proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt. He does this for two diagrams, and provided so much evidence many of the somber members of the audience even began to chuckle. In summary, he concluded by stating the thing that was running through all of our minds, “Something doesn’t add up.”

Analysis:
If you were to refer only to the rhetorical triangle, this organization should have very little chance for convincing and audience. There is no ethos. They are an group of people no one has ever heard of defying the statements of the pentagon, the leading scientists in the world, the president, press, and Congress. Similarly, the pathos is difficult to procure, as people suffering from lost loved ones would hate to think it’s a hoax. The audience is also not meant explicitly to be educated, but alsothe argument methods are meant to appeal to the common man. The power in this lecture lies in statistics, undeniable evidence, quotes, actual footage, and common sense. The speaker’s tone takes the stance of one that simply wishes to provide another side to the argument, and he is careful to never be accusing so as not to alienate his suspicious argument. This method fulfills the purpose of educating the public, and making them aware to information the media was hiding.

AOW 13

Blink

Malcolm Gladwell

Part 1



Malcolm Gladwell

A staff writer for the New Yorker, he won a National Magazine Award and was listed in TIME magazines top 100 most influential people in 2005. He has written 4 books, all best sellers.

The introduction to the book seems to be random, talking about a faux sculpture that was able to trick the best scientists and museums, but was never able to convince influential artists who could not prove it wrong. Gladwell begins by talking about the unexplainable instinct like reactions we have, stemming from our subconscious. He leaps into about 10 studies within the first two chapters, in which he introduces the concepts of “thin slicing” and the “locked door”. Thin slicing is how we take in information. It has been proven that people may gather enough information within a matter of seconds as they may in months. Similarly, the choices and knowledge behind the locked door often have far greater than or conscious.

In the time that this book was written, as well as today, there has been great fascination with the brain. As of yet, researchers have not scratched the surface of how the brain is able to do the things that it does. However, the studies that are written in Blink are examples of how some great minds have been able to decode some of its mysteries. Based on this, Gladwell wants to prove to us that one of the greatest aspects of our culture, the ideas of “stop and think” of “don’t judge a book by its cover” may not be entirely true. In his introduction, the author explicitly states that he hopes this book will change the way we approach our thought process, and making decisions. This can really only affect those in his audience who can follow the complicated studies researchers have been doing, and their even more complex results. However, the information from this books effects all people, and every aspect of life. Although I have only just started reading the book, I have great faith in science and find myself analyzing the reasons behind each decision I make. In this, Gladwell has certainly accomplished his purpose.

The rhetorical elements within the piece are limited to large portions of logos. However, the book is far from dry, engaging the reader with interesting anecdotes and a light tone that maintains the readers interest throughout the reading. Similarly, the book is very well organized, each of Gladwell’s theories cleanly placed in separate labeled chapters and supported until they may no longer be refuted intelligently.