TOW # 27 (visual image)

President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were the two final candidates of the 2012 presidential election. In this political cartoon the artist uses the well-known game, tic-tac-toe, and simple imagery to represent a popular opinion among voters that the election was “fixed” so that Obama had to win.

In the game Tic-Tac-Toe there is a very simple way to ensure a victory, all you have to do is get three corners. In this political cartoon the artist uses the faces of both Obama and Romney as the X’s and O’s of the game board, and Obama has three corners. Now no matter where Romney goes next, Obama has another opportunity to win. This use of aphorism is a commentary of the nature of the election. No matter which stance Romney had or issue he was running on Obama always had the advantage. At the time, democrats controlled congress, Obama was a sitting president, and he had the minorities. Although the election boxes were not stuffed and votes were not erased, the election, from a public relations and logistical standpoint, was fixed so that Obama would come up on top. The simplicity of the cartoon also helps make the artist’s ideas clear to their audience. 

            I believe the artist achieves their purpose of showing the nature of the 2012 presidential election. Through the use of clear drawings and a well-known game he or she is able to show the true competition between Obama and Romney, one that was not a competition at all.  

TOW # 26 "The -Ism Schism: How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack?" -Nunberg (essay)

The –Ism Schism: How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack?, is an essay written by Geoffrey Nunberg, a senior researcher and linguistics professor at Stanford University. In this essay he examines origins of the word “terror” and its uses. Through the use of famous testimony, and historical context/allusions is able to show how the language changes used to describe terrorism reflect a greater change in society as well as foreshadows the longevity of the “war on terror.”

The very first sentence of the essay is a quote from former president George W. Bush. Nunberg quotes, “The long-term defeat of terror will happen when freedom takes hold in the broader Middle East” the use of famous testimony introduces the change from terrorism to terror, and therefore introduces the purpose of this piece. The use of the word terror instead of terrorism by journalists and presidents describes not only the actions of terrorists, but also the reaction of the victims they are targeting. This change in meaning and usage begun after the 9/11 attacks occurred.  The people are afraid, and therefore the war is no longer only with a handful of terrorists, but has become a war on terror as a whole.

Throughout the essay Nunberg provides a timeline of the word terror. This use of historical context shows how the earliest form of the word is returning. By alluding to Robespierre’s Reign of Terror in 1793 Nunberg writes, “ ‘terror’ conveyed the exalted emotion people may feel when face to face with the absolute.” He then goes on to describe how the meaning changed by 1880, and in the Jazz Age “terrific” became a common superlative. However, now, the original form of the word has resurfaced, and this symbolizes the never-ending battle with terrorism. Nunberg highlights this point by describing another shift in our language. Instead of using the term “war against” we have switched it to “war on,” this dates back to the 20^th century when we used “war on” to campaign against social evils, and it is used to describe terror because it is a war that can never have full victory.   

             I believe that Nunberg was able to achieve his purpose of examining the changes in American language towards terrorism and describing its effects through the use of famous testimony, and historical context/allusions.

Tow # 25 "What the Bagel Man Saw" - Levitt and Dubner (Essay)

What the Bagel Man Saw, by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, is a economical essay that observes and analyzes the economy and human behavior through the experience of one man, Paul F. In their essay, Levitt and Dubner use point of view, comparisons and allusions to not only analyze human behavior and its effect on the economy, but also to answer the philosophical question, will all humans cheat if they believe they can get away with it?

The point of view this essay is told in is the most critical rhetorical device used, because it determines the way the essay is told and determines who it is told to. Levitt and Dubner write in third person omniscient as they walk their audience through the life of Paul F, a once economist and now businessman.  Their very first sentence is, “Once upon a time, Paul F. dreamed big dreams” (1).  This interesting use of point of view in an economical article allows the two authors to tell a story more so then a statistical paper. It provides background on the subject of their essay Paul F., which is important since the audience must believe that Paul is a trustworthy source. It first takes us through his early years as a boss of economists, who, as a gesture, gave bagels to his employees, to now a businessman who sells bagels and doughnuts to different companies. This is critical because the entire “story” explores the honesty and trustworthiness of Paul’s clients. Paul does not stand over the employees at the various companies he sells bagels to; he leaves a wooden box with a slit next to the food and then comes back to pick up his money. Due to his economics background Paul was able to determine the percentage of people at the different companies who were cheating him of his money. The use of point of view also helps determine that the audience of this paper is the general public who has an interest in the subject, and not other economists who already have extensive previous knowledge on it.  

Dubner and Levitt use comparisons in order to help the audience they are trying to reach undersand. In paragraph 18 the two authors share the conclusions Paul F has come to regarding who cheats and why. Paul F discovered that employees at the smaller companies he sells to, which may only have a few dozen employees, “outpays” or cheats less than companies with a few hundred employees. Paul understood that to most people this might seem illogical since in larger companies there is more public pressure to pay because more people are watching your actions, but Dubner and Levitt were able to explain through a comparison. They compared “bagel crime” to street crime, explaining how less crime appears in rural areas than in big cities. This occurs because “a rural criminal is more likely to be known and therefore caught.” This use of comparisons allow the two authors to explain to their audience, which is the general public, the ideas they share with Paul F even though they may not understand the intricacies of the economy.

At the end of the story Dubner and Levitt mention an allusion through the words of Paul F.  The Rings of Gyges is a philosophical story about a man who finds a ring that makes him invisible, and he then must decide to use this ring for good or evil. This allusion mimics Paul F’s business, because to his clients he is invisible, just a man they never see who drops off food. It also refers to the philosophical question will all humans cheat if they believe they can get away with it? This essay favors the belief that most humans are honest and although the number fluctuates due to outside circumstances humankind is not all a bunch of liars of cheats. According to Paul F and his analyses 89% of us are honest people.

I believe that Levitt and Dubner fully achieve their purpose through their use of rhetorical devices like, point of view, comparisons, and allusions.