Questionable Quality
-
Found on the premises of Johnson-McFarlane and Centennial Halls are what
are supposed to be “convenience” stores. These convenience stores make
their busin...
16 years ago
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 Andrew's response:
ReplyDeleteThe article I chose, titled "In from the Cold," is about Afghanistan's government finding new methods for defeating the Taliban insurgency. The editorial discusses a new way of stopping the Taliban from taking the lives of more soldiers. With a belief that killing Taliban soldiers won't be enough, the editorial states that if someone could get them to put down their weapons and provide them jobs, their numbers would diminish. Costing around 1 billon dollars, the plan would need a strong financial backing by allying nations. This would also include a rehabilitation program, to help ease the ex-Taliban into a normal life. This would only benefit the soldiers who joined the Taliban because they needed jobs or because they were bullied into it.
This editorial is framed around The Common Topic of Possibility. It discusses what we can do for the future and what was impossible in the past. It asks "What is possible? What is impossible? And of course, what is possible for the future?" The writer is claiming that if the Afghani government uses this possible tactic, than the Taliban insurgency will decline.
Located in the editorial section of the New York Times Newspaper, “Big Food” describes the most recent large scale mergers within the food industry. The article touches on Kraft’s purchase of Cadbury and to create a $55 billion megalith and Heineken’s acquisition of “Mexico’s Femsa to create a $25 billion megabrewer”. The author uses this tidbit of information to transition the article to the possible costs that consumers will now face as a result of the emergence of these huge mega –corporations. Past mergers have shown the prices of the consumer goods to rise significantly due to the lower level of competition within the specific products’ market. Beyond that the piece also warns of a significant drop in the quality and/or options available of the goods in question in the future should these mergers continue to occur across the global market to a point where not matter where one is, all the products will be the same or taste the same. This commentary on current affairs predicts the direction that the market will go if such actions keep continuing.
ReplyDeleteThe author’s predictions of what will occur in the future as well as analyzing the events that have happened in the past align with the common topic of conjecture. Past mergers of banks and oil companies begin the discussion of what exists within the current market, setting the scene for the discussion of the size and extent of what exists with the usage of Kraft and Heineken as statistical examples of how big these mergers can become and the extent to which their influence extends. The main purpose of the article that focuses on warming consumers about the possible costs and downfalls that may occur at the hands of these company combinations, appeals to the idea of “how things will be in the future”. The author uses the evidence given by multiple past mergers to hypothesize about what the outcome of these new mergers will bring. The article goes beyond that to predict what will happen if this trend continues without restraint, suggesting that diversity of products and the rules of supply and demand will be overridden as companies achieve a near monopolistic state.
“The party of Nope” is an article written strictly to bash republicans. The gist of the article is that in the past, during the Bush administrations reign specifically, the GOP had no issue in approving government spending and increasing the deficit. This was clearly exemplified by the republicans support of wasting money on the Iraq war. Now when it comes to increasing the deficit in order to pass a healthcare reform, they are no longer willing to spend any money. The common topic the writer used is the Topic of possibility. He discusses what was possible in the past, but is impossible now. Before it was possible for republicans to agree to spending money, and that is no longer a possibility. By simply calling the GOP the “The party of Nope” he is saying how it just won’t happen. All that they say is no, Yes is not possible.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Populist Addiction” David Brooks asserts that populism is a problem similar to elitism in that they both divide the country into opposing classes. Politicians play off of populism for three reasons: the simplicity of the concept; the way it takes the blame off individuals; and it being popular with the ruling class, helping politicians to gain power. However, Brooks points out that populism fails because voters realize that people in power are self-interested and that bashing the elites will not solve the nation’s problems. The author argues that “this country was built by antipopulists” like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who believed in a “united national economy.” Brooks argues that instead of an “Us versus Them” mentality of populism, America should look to an optimistic and united philosophy.
ReplyDeleteIn his article, Brooks asses the common topic of greater/lesser degree. When Brooks states that, in the anti-populist’s view, “government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war… [but] to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels,” he uses the anti-populist philosophy to describe the common topic of degree of what has been better in the past as opposed to societal norms today.
“Big Food”, is an editorial that brings up the much debated topic of large corporations, and how they continue to become larger. It brings up the point that companies keep buying one another out in order to make one larger and more powerful, but have these companies become too powerful? The editor opens his topic with, “Banks have gotten so big that they can unleash havoc and bill us for the pleasure.” These companies have become so large and powerful that some are able to do nearly anything to customers because it has become their only option. Oil companies now have larger economies than most companies, and computer systems and phone services along with other types of technology control most of the world technological advancement. One of the most dangerous of these companies is food corporations, which seem to have some of the most rapid increasing in their expansion. Food companies have become too large to imagine, buying out numerous others each year.
ReplyDeleteThis editorial uses the topic of impossibility. Before too long, competition will no longer exist and all the worlds’ food, technology and natural resources will be owned by a few organizations that will be able to control prices themselves, without giving the consumer any choice because of the lack of option. This impossibility is soon approaching and this editorial seems to have a theme of amazement as there is really nothing that can be done to stop these corporations from doing what they continue to do, expand.
"9/11 Terror Trials" is a letter to the editor from Christine Quinn reacting to the governments plans to hold the trials from 9/11 in lower Manhattan. She argues that New york has already been through enough with this ordeal and citizens of New York can't take anymore painful memories. Another point that she fights is that even after all they have been through since then, the city of New York is spending the citizens' tax dollars on this trial. How is that fair when these people had to live through this experience? On top of all of this, there will surely be heightened security and this will cause a good portion of NYPD to be present here and not elsewhere on the job. When Christine argues in her writing, she argues with the common topic of degree. She talks about what is good for all persons and some groups as in the group directly effected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. She talks about how it will be better if the government decides to hold the trial elsewhere, as in any place other than lower Manhattan.
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks’ article, “Politics in the Age of Distrust”, is about how the democrats have four ‘bad’ plans when it comes to passing a healthcare reform bill. He lists the four ideas that he has come up with and describes each of them. They are all extremely negative and Brooks is obviously very cynical about the issue. The approaches are called the Heedless and Arrogant Approach, the Weak and Feckless Approach, the Dangerous and Demagogic Approach and finally the Incoherent and Internecine Approach. In the first three approaches he outlines some details of what would occur with the bill but the fourth bill simply bashes the democrats and makes fun of them. He backs up his claims with his simple knowledge and his assumption that he knows politics and the policy better than anyone else. He lists negative facts about what people think and what is destined to happen no matter what and ends his article with ‘Have a nice day.’ He seems to use the common topic of degree and also the common topic of possibility. He argues about what is good for a certain community (the democrats vs the American people) and to what degree the reform will benefit both. He ends up basically concluding that nothing that the democrats do will be beneficial to anyone but that the best approach that can be taken is the Weak and Feckless Approach. This is the most positively written of all of the approaches but still is very negative and in the end achieves nothing in the immediate future. So this approach in effect has the greatest degree of benefit for both of the communities he talks about. He uses the common topic of possibility to essentially list what is going to happen or what he sees as being possible. It is clearly just his opinion but he writes it very strongly and knows the facts that are able to back up his assumptions.
ReplyDeleteIn his article “A Responsible Man,” Robert B. Semple Jr. reflects on the life of Charles ‘Mac’ Mathias, former U.S. Congressman from Maryland. He remembers all of Mathias’ accomplishments while in office, and praises him for his actions and ideology. Although he appeals extensively to pathos in his introduction, Semple dedicates his writing to exploring the common topic of degree, specifically challenging accepted norms. Using Mac Mathias as an example, he shows that acting with individual responsibility, everyone can surpass petty partisanship and “vote with conscience” as Mathias did. He supports his claim with other common topics, such as references to the past, or past conjectures, and discovering the real possibility of politics, as exemplified by Mathias. Overall, Semple is a sentimental and talented eulogist, writing to inspire his audience through the life of a revered member of government, Charles ‘Mac’ Mathias.
ReplyDeleteThe article’s title is “Obama to reaffirm commitment to an overhaul” by David M. Herszesnhorn. The article is discussing the democrats plan to overcome the obstacle which is called “Republican’s filibuster”. So in the article the democrats are planning on using budget reconciliation, if necessary. Budget reconciliation will allow the democrats to pass the health care plan, because if the health care bill turns out to reduce the deficit on the long run or will help the budget in any sort of ways the budget reconciliation will allow the health care bill to pass. The budget reconciliation allows the congress to pass bills by only 51% majority, therefore democrats don’t need the supreme majority to pass a bill but they need only 51% majority which they already have. Although the article mentioned that president Obama will mention in his State of the Union on Wednesday night that he and the Democratic Party will find a solution overcome the health care bill’s haul in the congress. In this article the writer is discussing an action form president Obama which is president Obama’s speech on Wednesday night, and then he gives the possibility of what might president Obama state in his speech, which is the possibility of using budget reconciliation to pass the healthcare bill. After that he gives the possible outcomes if the healthcare bill passed, they way the writer listed common topics were like a chain reaction. One action causes another action to change and then the change causes a different outcome and so on. The time is very well chosen to write such an article because president Obama’s speech is only few hours away and the article makes me to wonder whether what the writer predicted might happen or not. And if president Obama address the healthcare bill dilemma with a solution what will it be?, so the article’s common topic is very explosive and the common topics erupts so many predictions.
ReplyDeleteThe article I read is titled "Jaguars Don't Live Here Anymore". It is an article about the endangered species of jaguars, but that they do not and can not reside within the United States, much to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's dismay. The author, Alan Rabinowitz, expresses his disagreement with the USFWS's decision to try and restrain the jaguars from going outside of our border. He supports his argument through facts, including movie footage about a specified case, in explaining that the United States is not the jaguar's desired home. The habitat is not right for them. He exclaims that is has been over 100 years since jaguars roamed the western United States and have now ventured south of our country, it is not right to captivate them in a habitat that is harmful to them.
ReplyDeleteThe Common Topic that relates to this article would all of them. The Common Topic of Conjecture is obvious with this situation. "How things used to be in the past.." - the author explains that, yes the jaguars WERE ONCE in the United States, but in the future, they cannot survive in such a habitat. Their necessities do NOT exist in the U.S. The Common Topic of Degree also is relevant to the two last questions -"What has been better in the past?" and "What will be better in the future?"..Again, very similar to the Common Topic of Conjecture. It is very clear that 100 years ago these jaguars could healthily maintain a survival, although now the terms have changed and areas such as Arizona cannot supply the necessities the jaguar needs, therefor in the future it would be better for these jaguars to be elsewhere. Lastly, the Common Topic of Possibility is evident also. Yet again, relative to the future and past, what is possible and impossible seem like strong words, yet in this scenario they are necessary. It would literally be impossible for the jaguars to survive in the United States, as proved with the jaguar nicknamed Macho B who could not keep up with Arizona's climate and dryness.
The editor of the letter "End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" is opposing the 'don't ask, don't tell' tone that is carried in the political world whenever the topic same-sex relationships comes up, particularly in the military. It is stated that "a large number of loyal and talented Americans" are being discriminated against and discharged from the military for their "unacceptable" sexual orientation: homosexual.
ReplyDeleteUntil President Obama addressed the efforts to repeal the "law that bans gay members of the military from living their lives openly" during his State of the Union Address, any acknowledgement of working against this issue was being waited on. The editor states that improvement has been made (i.e. the Matthew Shepard Act), but "much more needs to be done".
From the list given in the book, conjecture and possibility is where common topics appropriate for this article would come from, such as: What does not exist? and What is possible in the future?... "What does not exist?" is a common topic that fits the controversy of the social justice for homosexuals that lacks in favor of a "law" and those who are prejudiced. However, after the statement President Obama gave during the course of his speech revives what may be possible in the future for homosexuals and the respect that they've yet to receive.