TOW #10 - from Words That Work by Frank Luntz

Dr. Frank Luntz is a political consultant who studies polls and focuses groups in order to craft arguments. In this excerpt from his book Words That Work, Luntz originally addresses the spouses of Republican men and women of Congress. In 2007, with the media becoming more and more powerful and the presidential election coming in the next year, Luntz informs the congressional spouses that proper word choice is pivotal.  In this excerpt, Luntz presents real-word examples in addition to using careful diction to emphasize that sometimes leaving out the right words makes all the difference.

In order to support his claim that “effective communication requires that you stop saying words and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people,” Luntz gives a list of what to “never say” versus what one should “instead say” followed by an example that appeals to logos.  After one of his lists he writes, “Similarly, ‘capitalism’ reminds people of harsh economic competition that yields losers as well as winners, while ‘the free market economy’ provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed.” He appeals to logos by simply providing what the American people think. He also appeals to pathos with his use of the words “harsh” and “losers”. This lets the spouses realize disdain that the wrong word can cause, causing them to understand how their words can affect an audience. Different connotations of words that mean the same thing can paint a different picture in an audience’s mind. After further establishing his ethos by mentioning his involvement in a “language creation effort involving environmental issues”, he goes on to give another example of how the wrong word can create the wrong picture. “‘Drilling for oil’ causes people to paint a picture in their minds of an old fashioned rig… ‘Exploring for energy’ conjures a picture of twenty-first technology…”. Placing the words “drilling” and “exploring” and “oil”and “energy” right next to each other gives the congressional spouses the opportunity to analyze the differences in the effects of the phrases that mean essentially the same thing. Also, Lentz’s juxtaposition of the terms “old” and “twenty-first century” in his analysis provides the spouses with the mindset of their own audience, the American people. With his specific examples and careful word choice, Lentz effectively conveys the right words have the right meaning and the wrong words don’t.

IRB Intro #2

blink by Malcolm Gladwell is the opportunity to see and learn about our subconscious, when we think without thinking. Gladwell presents his research into how the brain works in our everyday lives. His other works include Tipping Point and Outliers in addition to his regular articles for The New Yorker. For this marking period, Eamon and I decided to trade IRB books from last marking period. I trust his judgement and hope that we’ll be able to have good discussion about both of our books.

TOW #8 - Between the World and Me

Ta-Nehisi Coates writes Between the World and Me as a letter to his son, in light of the recent news that no charges would be brought up against the police officer who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. His book is for all Americans, so they can see what it’s like to be black in America, specifically through Coates’s eyes. He shares personal stories, recounting on what he has learned throughout his life. His title Between the World and Me indicates that his message is a personal one, and is aimed towards everyone. When he mentions his childhood in Baltimore he writes, “Not being violent enough could cost me my body. Being too violent could cost me my body.” Coates had to fend for himself in his hometown while also keeping himself out of trouble. He depicts the harsh reality and helps the reader understand as to how merely trying to live can feel unfair, especially for a child. With accounts from his childhood, Coates also shares realizations that he has come to as an adult. “Black people love their children with a kind of obsession,” he writes. “You are all we have, and you come to us endangered. I think we would like to kill you ourselves before seeing you killed by the streets that America made.” Coates gives his son and America the raw feelings a parent has when they hear of the horror stories happening around the country. No parent wants their child to prematurely lose their life. His statement allows Americans to understand the fear that is put into Black parents’ hearts when their child wants to go to the movies or their school football game. It can happen anywhere and to anyone. If the audience accepts Coates’s invitation to try on his shoes they’ll be able to have a better idea of what it’s like to be black in America.

TOW #7 - Nick Anderson Cartoon

Nick Anderson is a liberal cartoonist who focuses his drawings mainly on political and social issues within the U.S. The question as to whether abortion is moral or immoral is widely debated around the country. With that also comes the question as to when abortion should be illegal. In 2013, when this cartoon was made, most states had their own laws stating when abortion was illegal. The timeline spanned from after 12 weeks in some states to after 28 weeks in others; nine states had no laws restricting abortion. Also, with the U.S.’s federalist government, the Supreme Court can make final decisions and throw out state laws. In light of the controversy around abortion, Nick Anderson uses the woman’s facial expression and the phrases in the picture to say that a woman should have the final say, and not the federal government, when it comes to her having an abortion.

In the picture, a woman is in a clinic and the doctor is evaluating her body by looking at screen. The audience assumes that the doctor, a man with the words “Big Government” on his back, has some sort of apparatus hooked up to the woman in order to show information. Analyzing the picture all together allows for Americans to see Anderson’s purpose. The text “If you are reading this you are too far up my uterus” in addition to the woman’s facial expression, lets the audience understand that the woman is unhappy with the “big government’s” interference in her decision because she should have control over her body, not an outside party. Also considering that the doctor is a man and not a woman, Anderson presents the idea that a man does not understand what it takes from a woman to birth a child. Since he doesn’t know or understand, he should not be making decisions for her. Most government officials making decisions on abortion laws are men, so Anderson appeals to logos because it seems illogical for a man outside of the situation to make decisions for a woman and her body. She should have the right to make the ultimate decision concerning her body.