Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Rhetor's Notebook Post #4: The Common Topics
After reading the chapter in Ancient Rhetorics about the common topics and the commonplaces, pick an editorial or op-ed piece from the New York Times that interests you and that you think uses one of the common topics as the basis for its argument. As you write your blog post for Wednesday, please summarize the article first, making sure you clearly state the main claim of the piece and describe briefly how the writer supports his or her claim. Then, identify which common topic(s) you see the writer framing their argument around and explain how the writer engages with this topic. That is, imagine you’re playing a game of rhetorical jeopardy. You have the answer in front of you, and your job is to explain what the question is that the piece responds to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here's Brooke's response:
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the editor states that “the chances of Congress passing a bill that puts both a cap and a price on greenhouse gases are somewhere between terrible and nil.” Two reasons why the public believes a bill will not pass are that they believe the Senate will be too weak after it finishes with the health care bill and that the nation can't afford a bill that puts an increase in energy prices. The editor believes that these excuses should not stand and that a good program would create more jobs than it costs. He argues that the timing is right, there is an urgency in the race for green markets with other countries, and there is the question of Obama losing his credibility if he doesn't meet the target of reducing the United States emissions by 17 percent by 2020. He believes that Democrats as well as Republicans “seem willing to settle for what would be the third energy bill in five years” and while this is a helpful step, “the only sure way to unlock the investments required to transform the way the country produces and delivers energy is to put a price on carbon.”
I can see how the editor uses the common topic of Conjecture to frame his argument. First he tells us what exists: a new Republican Senator against Obama and Obama with a State of the Union Speech coming up where he can push for a climate bill. We also know the facts that exist from the past, present, and what will happen in the future if we don't do something. For example, he tells us that the long-term trend in greenhouse gas emissions is up and a bill passed last year in the house which calls for 17% lower emissions from 2005 to 2020. We also know that China is moving to create “green jobs” and that they are a competing market for us. From these things that exist, the editor makes the argument that we must do something about them so that we can fulfill our promises and stimulate our economy for the future.
The editor also uses the common topic of Possibility. First, he makes the statement that many people see it as “impossible” for a bill to pass which would put a cap and price on emissions. He shows us what exists, what needs to change, and how this is possible. He uses the example that “Five years ago, it (China) had no presence at all in the wind manufacturing industry; today it has 70 manufacturers. It is rapidly becoming a world leader in solar power, with one-third of the world’s manufacturing capacity” so if it is possible for China, it is possible for us too. The editor also acknowledges that some senators are trying to forge a bill that would put a price on emissions. In order for this bill to be “possible” they will need help from President Obama to pass it, but it is indeed, possible.
The article I read in the New York Times was called “The Taliban Would Applaud”. The article is about how the French Parliament has recently banned all head covers in France. This new rule prohibits these veils in all public places, including schools, hospitals, etc. The author’s stance on this new rule is disbelief because he/she believes that people should be able to make decisions for themselves, not have the government tell them what to do. The author also believes that the government has no reason to do this because the population of people that would wear the veils is so few. The author states that there will be no political gain coming from this. This article covers the common topic of conjecture because it is describing how things will be in the future. Although the author does not agree with it, wearing veils in France in the future will not happen because of this new rule. This article could also fit into the category of what is better, more just because the author believes that this new rule is a disgrace and should not be enforced by political leaders. The author is trying to convince the reader that it would be better or more just if people could make their own decisions on what they could wear, and not be controlled by the government.
ReplyDelete"The Taliban Would Applaud"
ReplyDeleteThe author describes how the French Government is preparing to make it unlawful to wear head veils in public spaces and barring those who do from public transportation, public schools, and even hospitals. The author believes that his is outlandish and that people "must be free to make these decisions for themselves, not have them imposed by governments or enforced by the police" To prove his or her point, the author relates the ban to the Taliban and their requirement of such veils to cover women. The relation emphasizes the loss of the freedom expression, even in a society considered "normal" by western standards. The author continues to state that this ludicrous law is just a stop gap to hold the public from protesting the high unemployment rate. The overall idea for the editorial is that people should have to right to freedom of expression no matter who is expressing themselves.
In the article "To Heal Haiti, Look to History, Not Nature" the history of Haiti is discussed which will help lead us to determining the best way to rebuild Haiti. Haiti has always been a nation that we associate poor and suffering with. The catastrophe that has occurred to the citizens of Haiti was terrible and so many people have died because of the corrupted state of the government.In 1804 the Haitians succeeded in revolting from slavery and becoming first independent black republic that the world has seen. Due to this factor the United States would not acknowledge Haiti for over eight years in fear that revolt would occur in the United States as well. The government became the main entity that people sought to control which became violent, dangerous, and corrupt in a short period of time. Americans have come in to try and help Haiti before, and although we had accomplished building roads, bridges, and some other small things we need to work to build a new Haiti. The author makes it clear that to do this we need to open our markets to the people of Haiti, and although this would elicit a responsibility on our side it would allow more money to flow into the economy of Haiti. This article urges the audience that it is addressing to open the markets to Haiti so that they have the opportunity to shift the power from the corrupt government into something better.
ReplyDeleteThe common topic that is used in this article is conjecture. In order to persuade the reader that what is stated is in fact necessary, the author reverts back to the past. He expresses the mess that Haiti society used to be in, and what it is in right now. It is also pointed out that we once tried to help Haiti and how that did not work to the extent that is needed. The history of Haiti has been a long and sorrowful one, and by pointing this out we are able to see how it could get better in the future. The author is using conjecture and talking about how we can help build a brighter future to persuade his intended audience to agree with him.
The article written on January 23, 2010 called “Radiation Offers New Cures, and Ways to do Harm,” written by Walt Bogdanich explains that even though radiation treatment was able to help many people, we the people ignore the fact that some mistakes can occur during this process. He tells us about two stories in New York where one man who had tongue cancer dies by radiation blasting his brain stem leading to death. And another women who had breast cancer who received too much radiation that it burned a hole into her chest. Bogdanich explains that hospitals need to be extra careful when using these machines and that everyone is so reliable on these machines that no one notices the side effects. And he believe that manufactures should make a machine that turns off when no one notices that someone is getting an overdose of radiation because of the low detection of radiation overdose.
ReplyDeleteThe letter to the article agrees with Bogdanich because he feels that we need to take our time in trying save patients and not to depend on a machine. Also, both articles are trying to get the audience see that many people don’t see the stories that are meant to be told because there is always something else going on. Also this topic is possible in the future because even though this is not a timely issue it needs to be said because everyone is suffering from diseases and everyone should know all the facts dealing with their situation. Finally, it piece that relates to the health bill that is trying to be passed because everyone needs to know the issues before jumping into something blind folded.
The article “Big Food” appeared in The New York Times on January 25, 2010 talks about big companies trying to take over smaller companies. For example, four fifth of the chips in the world’s PC come from Intel, 10 companies account for more than two thirds of the world’s beer sale, and half of cell phone customers in the U.S. are from AT&T and Verizon. The argument in this article is that there are harmful consequences to these actions. Banks have become so powerful that it can unleash havoc and force the consumers to pay for it. According to one study, after General Mills purchased Chex brands, it led to more expensive cereal, and the story is the same for several other big companies. Not only is price a concern, but essentially everything will soon taste the same because it is owned by the same company.
ReplyDeleteThis article posses several common topics, like the common topic of conjecture. We don’t know for sure that prices went up because these big companies are buying out little ones, it could be that the prices of grain went up, so the cereal companies has to raise their price to even out with their profit. By looking at this trend the author hypothesize that more big companies will buy out their competition in the future, and nothing will exists except the big companies. But we don’t really know that so this whole argument was based on a conjecture. This idea ties in with the idea of possibility. There is a possibility that big companies will take over the smaller companies, but it’s not certain. When analyzing at the idea of the common topic of Degree. It depends on how this topic is viewed. It can be seen that since big companies are getting bigger, that when something does happen, it can catastrophic, and there will be less variety in products. But it could also mean that bigger companies now have more resources so they can invest in more, therefore creating more jobs for the people, and it will be easier to control the quality. All in all the common topics can be used to describe any side of an argument; it all depends on how you look at things.
The article I read was called, “Obama’s Credibility Gap”, written by Bob Herbert. Herbert argues that the Obama we elected is not the Obama we see now in office. The main points he brings up is that many voted for Obama because they thought he would work across party lines and Herbert says that he could be doing a much better job of that. Herbert also brings up that Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq and he recently just put thousands more back into the Middle East. Herbert also brings up how Obama was going to help the poor in the country and spent so much on these big business and bank bail outs. Finally, Herbert discusses the heath care bill and how it looks nothing like what Obama’s bill and that he has not taken enough of a leadership role on the bill. Now the bill might not even pass at all because the Democrats lost their super majority in the Senate. What ties all these complaints together is that Obama is creating a “credibility gap” for himself because people will not believe his promises anymore.
ReplyDeleteEvery small complaint Herbert makes of Obama’s job in office utilize common topics. They are all recent events and choice the President has made and all have multiple sides/arguments to them. Also, the fact that Herbert is able to write about them and make an opinion or thesis on Obama’s choices, makes all these issues common topics. For example, not too many Americans do not have opinions on Iraq or health care; almost everyone takes a stance which is what makes these issues common topics.
In his op-ed titled "The Pragmatic Leviathan", David Brooks uses Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan as a point of departure for discussing the increasing role and size of the Obama administration and the federal government. Brooks argues that President Obama has been marked by pragmatism and compromise, but since his inauguration the role of the presidency has expanded, and the president has become the ever-supreme face of our nation. Brooks has a key point that the president has shown himself to be a fine executive, but has gone wrong in trying to make himself the irreplaceable individual in nearly every facet of American life. Brooks argues that if the president wants to prove himself a worthy leader to the people, he should spend the next 12 months demonstrating to the public how government can serve a humble and limited role.
ReplyDeleteBrooks first introduces his argument by engaging with the topic of how things used to be, noting that the Pilgrims left Great Britain headed for America to escape the tyranny of the monarch - the king, who was as Brooks put it (referencing the cover of Leviathan) "the head and the mind." He establishes a powerful relationship and foundation on which to build the rest of his argument. The Pilgrims are seen as the building block and foundation of American life, escaping tyranny and enduring hardship to arrive at freedom. He continues by framing his argument around how things used to be, noting that America has been defined not as a nation with the government as the head, but by the innovative energy and entrepreneurial spirit of those outside of government - of its engineers, scientists and businesspeople. Brooks concludes his column by framing it around how things will be in the future. He implores the government to listen to the people, not itself; and that to continue governing without the consent of the governed will be - in essence - the downfall of our democracy. Regardless of one's stance on certain policy issues, no one can refute that progress has stemmed not from the government but from the governed, and Brooks makes a compelling argument from reform (no, not healthcare reform) but a true change in the functions of government by employing our roots as a nation and "how things used to be."
The New York Times article I read was titled “Democrats, Get Down to Business”. According to the article, the recent republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race has apparently shown an ideological shift of independence toward republicans. Voters are saying that health care reform is not immediately necessary- economic stability is. One in five Americans are currently unemployed or underemployed; that is the issue Americans care about. The editor outlined four courses of action necessary to put the nation on a better course economically. Taxes need to be cut for large and small businesses, a more focused health care bill needs to be passed that saves Americans money, not necessarily cause health reform, immigration needs to be reformed to make citizenship more accessible to those benefiting our economy, and the growing budget deficit needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteThe editor of the article make use of conjecture to convince democrats that they must buckle down and create job for any hope of economic stabilization. The editor describes that if the outline steps are taken, we can “expand our economy and balance the budget.” The editor also talks about Clintons economic success after a line of republican leader to provide proof that it was done before, and can be done again. The common topic of degree is also put to use when the article states that while health care reform may seem important, slight augments to the current bill is more likely to be passed and make more American happy.
"New York Could Use the $700 Million"
ReplyDeleteWashington's education program called Race to the Top gives money to states that improve or close their failing schools. Charter schools' role, or lack of a role, in the New York school systems and the indecisiveness of the legislators in Albany is allowing as much as $700 million to slip through the state's hands. Governor David Patterson vetoed a bill earlier that would have allowed up to 400 charter schools because it would have taken authority from local governments to state legislature. Despite the problems, the author notes a second chance to apply for the program and cites another, unrelated instance of Albany lawmakers costing the state needed funds.
The common topic of degree is used heavily in this article. However, the author begins with the common topic of the possibility of future funds raised by the state. Ending with past conjecture, the author refers to the fact that the mayor offered a non-related program that would allow fees on cars during rush hours in NYC and the poor application to Washington's program could cause the same. The author argues that regardless of New York's school system, something must be dune to great something better than the current norm. Interestingly, the emphasis does not seem to be on the actual education process but rather the funds necessary for the state. Nonetheless, it takes money to make a better and more just school system; therefore, his argument can emphasize the dollar value being lost.
In “Still Waiting at the TSA,” the editor talks about the need for a TSA chief right now. This is especially needed in times now of fear from another terrorist attack. With a leader in charge, the TSA will be more aware of actions needed to take place and to try to prevent another attack with even better preparation. We have been without a TSA chief for about a week now as Southers stepped down from his role due to an incident that made others wary. He misled a Senate hearing of himself in which he illegally accessed a police database without authorization. Because of situations like these and the high importance of the position of the TSA chief, it is imperative that the nominees for this role are trustworthy, honorable individuals who will work their best to inform and protect the public of future attacks.
ReplyDeleteThe writers claim of a need for a new TSA is fairly obvious. Of course we need someone in the lead of such an important job for the protection of our nation. He also supports this by including the faults of our past TSA chief. Showing such flaws only encourages and drives people to want and elect someone who will be honorable, trustworthy, and hardworking to help protect our nation.
This article uses the common topic of conjecture. The things that exist are the problems of not having a TSA chief, fear of future terrorist attacks, and the inability of government agencies to set up a policy and carry it out in such an important area of the security of transportation when there is no head of security. Things that do not exist are obviously a TSA chief, honesty on the part of nominees, and a focused plan that is clearly stated by the head of the TSA. There is a problem that pervades the entire system of security for transportation because it impacts every part of TSA.
How things used to be seem to be far away from what is in plan for the future. Although there was a leader of security, this nominee that Obama chose as the head of the agency of transportation security was dishonest. With this as incentive, people are motivated to chose a TSA chief who will do the right thing, work hard for theif job, and be a trustworthy and honest person to the public.