Unit 2 Reflection

Nkosi Jones 

Mr. Gabriel

Unit 2 Reflection                                                                                                                              November 27, 2011

            Chosen Prompt: Synthesis Essay-What is the individual’s duty to his government? What is the government’s duty to the individual? In an essay that synthesizes and uses for support at least 3 of the readings from this unit, discuss the obligations of individuals within a society. Remember to attribute both direct and indirect quotes. Refer to the sources by authors’ last names or by titles. Avoid mere paraphrase or summary.

The role of government and citizens in society has always been a widely discussed topic. Thousands of prominent, forward-thinking rhetors, politicians, visionaries, and philosophers throughout history have shared their ideas on the matter with the general public. Often times, it is these ideas that prompt men to both tear down their existing government and erect a new government, one that corresponds with these changing ideas; for men have always strived to create the perfect form of government, a government that provides a sense of security, fairness/equity, and general well-being for all of its citizens. However, as time moves forward, it is my opinion that humankind has become increasingly more aware of the roles that both citizens and government must play in order to create this perfect governing system. The most prevalent, contemporary idea on the matter has been dubbed the ‘social contract theory’: the idea that, to be successful, government has to be a two-way street in that all citizens, in return for the services the government provides, must abide by the law as long as it corresponds to the will of the majority.

Philosophers Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and the makers of the Iroquois Confederation have all advocated for the belief in this theory at one point or another. In addition, all seem to be in agreement with the idea that all men are created equal and “no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (Locke). However, assuming the premise that all are created equal, one man lacks the power to assert his will if it should conflict with that of another. It is for these reasons that people who possess common interests and goals unite, to assume “new powers” with which they can assert their will (Rousseau). But these new powers prove to be successful only when the support of the masses is behind it, for without the will of the majority of the people who made this unification possible, these powers are significantly reduced. For these reasons, a government must act in accordance with the majority and rulers must rule selflessly. If a government or ruler should fail in this regard, it is the right of the majority to overthrow both the ruler and the government in order to construct new ones. (Iroquois Confederation/Locke).

Although the assertion of the will of the majority is a major role that governments must assume, it is by no means the only task that a government has. Governments must also insure order and promote the general well-being of its citizens (Machiavelli). Under the same premise that men are born free, it is impossible to effectively force all citizens to obey the laws, which were constructed to achieve a sense of fairness/equity, thus achieving order. Therefore,  “Whosoever…out of state of nature unite into a community, must…give up all the power, necessary to the ends…for [uniting]” (Locke). To further ensure the fairness and equity of the unification they established, citizens must abide by all laws, should the law be looked favorably upon by the majority. Though the citizen might be in the minority, in that he believes the law is unjust, if they should want to continue to reap the benefits of that unification, he/she must abide by the law anyhow. If even a couple refuse to obey the law, order and equity is then put into jeopardy making the government ineffective. For these reasons, it is imperative that regardless of their viewpoint on that specific item, all citizens obey the law.

Logically, it is both the responsibility of the rulers/government and the governed individuals to ensure the success of the government. The social contract theory, shaped by such influential thinkers as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, seems to be the most highly regarded and accurate theory about the roles of government and the governed. However, as history suggests, the forward-thinkers of tomorrow may in fact construct an even better principle upon which governments should be built.

Nolan's Cheddar Commercial

Summary:

A mouse is searching for cheese and then gets caught in a mouse trap. The mouse appears to be dead but then he starts "pumping" the mouse trap bar in order to get free.

Author: 

The author is most likely the makers of Nolan's Cheddar.

Context/Purpose:

Like most advertisements, the context is spatial. They are trying to convince the general public to buy their product.

Rhetorical Devices:

Pathos: The audience is a little disturbed at the sight of the dead mouse and the music adds to that disturbing image.

Irony: No home-owner wants mice in their homes yet that is this commercial's primary persuasive argument. This commercial seems to argue that because mice will go to such lengths for this cheese, it must be good cheese.

Hyperbole: Obviously, the determination of the mouse to get the cheese was a bit of an overstatement 

Humor: The image of the small mice lifting to the Rocky theme is quite funny, and it is this humor that, in my mind, made this commercial so effective.
Contrast: The mood in the beginning is very uplifting. The music is a fast-paced feel-good song. Then once the rat is trapped, the mood becomes somber. The music is a very slow, sad song.

Effectiveness: 
This commercial was the winner of the Best TV Advertisement Award in 2010. So clearly, this is a very effective commercial. The hilarious image of the mouse lifting to the rocky theme song made this commercial quite memorable and if a commercial is not memorable than it is not very effective.

A Very Powerful Commercial

Summary:
The video displays little children (ages 5-7) mimicking the horrible actions of their parents. It shows children smoking cigarettes, littering, beating women, and doing many more horrible actions.

Source:
I found the video on youtube. It was created and posted by ChildFriendly, an organization dedicated to inspiring parents to set a good example for their children.

Context:
Spatial- The video was constructed in response to the poor examples that some parents set for their kids.

Purpose:
The purpose of this video to inspire parents to revise their bad habits so that they may set a good example for their kids and prevent them from engaging in these harmful activities.

Audience:
This video targeted parents.

Rhetorical Devices/Effectiveness:
This video was entirely pathos. It is based on the assumption that children mimic the bahavior of their children. It makes use of the belief that children are and should be innocent beings. For those who hold this belief, the video is incredibly powerful, for it displays children who are not so and uses an antecendent relationship to convey that their parents' actions made them this way. This relationship was established by allowing the parents to act first and then the children, slightly delayed. Additionally, the video had a somber mood throughout. This was first established through the music that was playing in the background and the dark/drab coloring of the video. All of these elements, especially the antecedent relationship, make this video incredibly powerful.

The Man Who Made Wall Street

Author:
Anthony J. Drexel

Why:
I realized that I know nothing of economics, and what better place to start learning than a biography of the man who created Wall Street, the economic center of the world.

Sections:
Post 1 Due: December 11; pages 1-60
Post 2 Due: December 25; pages 60-120
Post 3 Due: January 8; pages 120-180

How to Fix No Child Left Behind: Time Magazine

Summary:
This article dealt with the controversial topic that I am examining in my research paper: No Child Left Behind. The author disagreed with many's assertion that it has been successful. He analyzed many studies, provided many quotes, and recounted many examples of the acts failings.

Author:
Alex Tehrani from Times Magazine. He/she clearly disagreed with the guidelines that NCLB puts forth. From his use of statistics and quotes, I can discern that he is clearly much more knowledgable about the act that most people (including many education professionals)

Context/Exigence:
Written in 2007, this article was prompted by the fact that NCLB needed to be renewed in a few weeks and many dis not want this to happen.

Purpose:
The author's purpose was examine how effective the act really was after 5 years of enactment and pursuade some supporters that it wasn't as effective as they thought it was.

Audience:
The author seemed to target commoners specifically. I make this claim because, he/she provided a very brief explanation of what AYP was and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and failed to address funding for the act at all. I feel that if he was writing for politicians voting on the legislation or educators lobbying for/against the education, he would have either neglected to say anything and just assumed his readers knew or provided an extensive summation of the act in order to convey to them that he is well-read.

Rhetorical Elements:
The author used a plethora of devices in his 4 page paper. The most frequently used were testimonies from teachers and other respected persons in the educational field, examples of schools and children who were affected, statistics to support his claimes and the use of headings to section off and arrange his/her ideas. The author also used nonsense words to stress his/her points (ex. "think-tank wonk").

Effectiveness:
I thought the author's argument was very persuasive. I was on the fence on this issue, but his carefully constructed arguments made sense and effectively refuted the oppositions' views. Their arguments, although strong, were not aggressive and did not allienate readers.

Final IRB Post: This I Believe II Pages 59-245

Summary/Author:This book is a collection of essays from Americans throughout the nation. The topic and "prompt" of this issue is: "What would you say in five hundred words to capture a core principle that guides your life?". The book includes around 75 different three to four page essays written by a diverse selection of people. The authors of this book range from the famous, such as: Pulitzer Prize winners, professional athletes and singer, to your ordinary diner waitress. In this section, I read essays about integrity, sexuality, memories, relationship, and what it means to be American.

Rhetorical Devices:

• Definition: one author uses the Random House Unabridged Dictionary to define the term "to settle," which essentially sets up the rest of her argument
• Communal Memory:
• NRA
• Liberal vs. Conservative
• the Gap
• Holocaust
• etc...
• Universal Analogies:
• "A bird in the hand is two in the bush"
• Personal Anecdotes: These were used in many of the essays to illustrate their point. These anecdotes ranged from being held up at a red light to being at the foot of her mom's deathbed
• Repetition: Some essays repeated a singular phrase or a word over and over again to stress its importance
• Climax
• Humor
• Contrast: Some authors used contrasting situations to accentuate the benefits of one situation
• Irony
• Anaphora: One essay, which dealt with our roots, used the phrase "each of whom came from" in three successive clauses
• Testimonies

Effectiveness
Each essay included in this book provoked a different response from me. As there were 70-some essays in this book, there was no way that each response was a positive one. In fact, I disagreed with many of the assertions made by some of the authors. There was an essay about settling, rather than pursuing your goals, which raised a red-flag in my mind; no matter how convincing their argument may be, I would have refused to acknowledge this as truth. Even though I disagreed with many of the mindsets reflected in this book, most, if not all, provoked me to either redefine or rediscover my own viewpoints on subjects that I hardly ever think about. In this way, all of the essays were successful.

Rhetorical Analysis of That Old Piece of Cloth:
Frank Miller makes use of contrast in this essay. He begins by introducing his original viewpoint of "that old piece of cloth," indicating that it stands for "unthinking patriotism." He then goes on to describe his newfound love for that piece of cloth, indicating that it now stands for "self preservation." The way in which the author describes the reason for this change of perspective, is what makes this such an effective essay. In this description, he uses pathos, vivid imagery, strong diction, and communal memories such as 9/11 to make the reader sympathize with his views. He states that "thousands of my neighbors were ruthlessly killed" and that terrorists "want us to die". He also creates analogies throughout the piece. The terrorists are like the bad guys he imagines when creating his comic books about Batman. These elements all work synergistically to suggest the idea that America is being targeted and in need of protection. After this idea is established, he proclaims that "you've got to do what you can to help your country survive."
The writer of this essay establishes his credibility early-on. He comes off as a thoughful, non-comformist who uses logic and "indestructible ideas" to formulate his opinions on certain matters. This is done through the brief narration of his childhood and upbringing. This helps readers to become more open to hear his argument. Furthermore, the mindset discussed in the beginning also help to convince the opposition to side with his views. He first offers the opposition's viewpoint and then, throughout the rest of the essay, refutes it, making the essay somewhat of a long refutation. Lastly, Miller ends with a testimony from Ben Franklin that basically asserts that we must all join together if we don't want to perish. All of these elements contribute to the success of the essay.


*I chose to rhetorically analyze just this one story because it's impossible to analyze the whole story considering its comprised of over 70 different essays, each with their own purpose and message

Allegory of the Cave

Plato packed a lot of information into this story. He examines what humans view as the truth and why that it so. The philosophical nature of the piece forced me to reread certain sentences and passages several times in order to follow his train of thought and grasp the concepts he is referring to. One claim he makes that strikes me as truthful is that whatever you are exposed to is your definition of reality. The people stuck in the cave viewed the shadows of the objects passing by as real objects, not the shadow of objects. Since they had no knowledge of the actual physical object, the shadow was more real for them than the actual object itself. I think this applies to a variety of things, one being stereotypes. For Example: If you are only exposed to one Native-American in your school, his actions, thoughts, words, behaviors, and being becomes the reality of all Native-Americans, simply because that is what you are exposed to. Once you meet another American-Indian who doesn't possess the same qualities an lives a different lifestyle, you may think of him as an exception, but he may in fact be more consistent with contemporary Native Americans. I feel that this is how the people who were brought out of the cave felt when they saw the objects in "reality." I'm sure that they considered these objects strange and exceptions, because for them, the reality was that most objects look like the shadows on the wall. This is essentially how stereotypes are built, a few peoples' experiences with a group becomes "reality" to them.