Tow #25- New York Times Article/ "Is It Now A Crime to Be Poor?"/ Barbara Ehrenreich

Reading Goal: Correctly identify the author's purpose 

Writing Goal: Use and cite direct quotes; don't just paraphrase

Societies all over the world experience conflicts related with poverty and the gap between rich and poor. The poor are notoriously associated with crime and danger, leading to societies that have no trust for those below the poverty line and no desire to help them. Author and journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, through the use of irony and exemplification, argues that this mindset about the poor is misguided and a result of stereotyping.

Ehrenreich's article relies heavily on examples to show that treatment of the poor and blame for illegal behavior is wrong in many of America's cities. She first starts with the results of a recent study that investigates the "criminalization of poverty" (Ehrenreich), where the impoverished are blamed for crimes or are put in poverty because of common stereotypes and guilty looking behavior. When, for example, someone on the brink of poverty is fined for littering or illegally crossing the street and can't pay, they could end up homeless or in prison for not paying their bills or their fine. This is often even more true for African American and Hispanic citizens, who have to deal with racial stereotypes as well, not just being blamed for suspicious actions. The author also uses the example of Al Szekely, an elderly man in a wheelchair from Washington D.C. Though he is an innocent, polite man and a minister, he was put in prison and forced to leave the homeless shelter he lives in "for not appearing in court to face a charge of 'criminal trespassing'" (Ehrenreich). He received this charge because he was found sleeping on a sidewalk of the city, which is illegal for all U.S. citizens, homeless or otherwise. Ehrenreich uses other examples as well to make the point that the treatment of people in poverty is unfair and that these people have a disadvantage when it comes to this treatment or the laws they must follow.

Irony is another tool Ehrenreich uses often to make her argument. By way of many of her examples, she examines cases where people in poverty where unfairly arrested, fined, or imprisoned and became impoverished as a result of this treatment/circumstance. The act of imprisoning criminals and upholding the law is supposed to prevent crime and help, much less get in the way of, poverty. Instead, there are many situations where "upholding the law" (Ehrenreich) has created poverty. Also, Ehrenreich comments on how law enforcers frequently find the impoverished or poor at fault and blame them for illegal behavior because they can almost always profile a person as a "potential suspect" if that person is just "strolling around in a dodgy neighborhood" (Ehrenreich). Through the use of irony and sarcasm in statements like the one above, the author is questioning how fining and imprisoning the poor is of any benefit. They cannot pay the fines, and they take up unnecessary space in prisons if they are there for simple reasons like loitering or laying on the street. The poor are stereotyped and blamed when, Ehrenreich argues, "we can't afford to help the poor", or "go on tormenting them" (Ehrenreich).

Author Barbara Ehrenreich uses examples and irony to make a point about America's treatment of the impoverished: that it is unfair and doesn't accomplish anything. She challenges the common stereotypes about the poor and those in poverty and claims that law enforcement is too quick to blame these people for illegal actions, crime and general suspicious activity. Overall, Ehrenreich questions whether people take the easy way out by blaming the impoverished and also questions why many seem to think it  now a "crime to be poor" (Ehrenreich).

Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.

IRB #4 Introduction Post

Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife

By Mary Roach 

Spook is all about the scientific evidence that both supports and debunks ideas on the "afterlife". It focuses on finding factual explanations for the beliefs of many cultures and religions, using the studies of certified scientists, historians, and other experts on the subject. The author, Mary Roach, wrote the book because she was curious about what happens after people die, and decided to collect information both for against the argument that some sort of afterlife exists. The book is supposed to be informative, cultural, and funny. 

I chose this book because science has never been one of my favorite topics, and I was trying to branch out from what I normal read/have read for my other IRBs, subject-wise. So far, I've read a book on Native American history, a memoir about food (cheese), and a psychological, somewhat "self-help" book by Malcolm Gladwell. Reading something comparing religion and science seemed a good choice and more challenging topic since, at least to me, it enters official "non-fiction territory". Also, religion is very important to me on a day-to-day basis. I'm an active member at my church, so I've considered a lot of the questions the author appears to think about and argue about. I'm hoping that this book rounds out the information I've learned from reading IRBs this year and is as good as its reviews. 

Tow #24- Slate Magazine Article/ "In the Name of Love"/ Miya Tokumitsu

Reading Goal: Identify the type of writing as well as strategies used.
Writing Goal: Write a well-developed TOW essay, but keep it more concise than recent TOWs.

The statement, "Do what you love, love what you do" is a common American saying, so common that it inspires many to go off and live their dreams, including college students with no idea of their future career. Some criticize this statement because it is based on personal preference, and not economic, political, or social benefit. Some say that this philosophy only really works out for the rich, educated, privileged American, and not the majority of the population. Whether  it works or not, Ph.D. and author Miya Tokumitsu argues through exemplification and counter-argument that people should consider the economic, political, and/or social consequences that could arise from working because of the passion they have for that job or art.

Tokumitsu is very thorough when refuting others' claims about "Doing what you love..." (DWYL) to make her own points about the hazards of DWYL. She starts her article with some history on the statement and the application it had in Steve Jobs' life. The example she makes of him, a successful man who did what he loved passionately and benefited from it by convincing others to work for him doing the same thing, seems to counter her own claims at first, but actually makes her argument stronger. Jobs' is a prime example that the DWYL philosophy is somewhat "self-centered" and works best for people who have the means to be successful if it doesn't work out, and using someone so widely known as a counter-argument creates both appeals to logos and pathos in a way that helps readers understand her interesting perspective. She also dives into the weaknesses of the DWYL philosophy in detail with more examples. Perhaps going from personal experience, she explains how many academic minds, such as Ph.D.s, and artists of different sorts are resigned to low incomes due to the idea that they are "doing what they love". DWYL can be used as an excuse for poor salary, poor recognition, and other consequences of certain jobs. Tokumitsu claims that the worst jobs are either jobs no one wants, or jobs with lots of passion, and provides quotes from many sources. Overall, she paints the DWYL philosophy in a bad light and backs up this claim with connectable examples readers will understand.

Author Miya Tokumitsu uses counter-arguments and examples to debate that "doing what you love" is not beneficial in today's society. She thinks that it can be used as an excuse and self-centered inspiration for a job. But though a job is important to others, is it really the work THEY will have to do for the rest of their careers?

Tokumitsu, Miya. "Stop Saying “Do What You Love, Love What You Do.” It Devalues Actual Work." Slate Magazine. Jacobin Magazine, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

Tow #23 (Visual Text)- World Vision Advertisement/ "30 Hour Famine"/ World Vision 30 Hour Famine Pamphlet

Viewing Goal: Identify importance of images, not just text in image.
Writing Goal: Analyze advertisement in depth like a written text and understand audience's perspective.

Most American teenagers don't experience what it means to be really hungry- to go without food for more than a few hours, to not have food to eat for days. Unfortunately, around 8,000 kids die worldwide every day from malnutrition. World Vision, a Christian mission organization, works to support the families of these children and provide food to families below the poverty line, often in South America, Africa, and Southeastern Asia. Their ad uses appeals to pathos and rhyming to convince it's viewers to raise money as a part of 30 Hour Famine and experience hunger for 30 Hours.

Much of World Vision's ad appeals to it's viewers emotions and feelings on hunger. Everybody hates to be hungry, and most people would not wish that feeling on anybody. When they look at the children in the advertisement, they see skinny, starving children who are just happy to have a bowl of rice to eat. They also most likely notice that there is a single bowl for both of them, and because it looks like a meager amount, their hearts are opened to the problem of malnutrition. Most people feel empathy toward the children and want to gve them more- they would not want their children, siblings, friends or anyone else they know to rely on sharing one bowl if rice as their meal, maybe even meal for the whole day. The text at the bottom if the ad, which says "Release the feast", sticks in people's brains because it rhymes and  also signifies that, for these children, that bowl of rice is a feast. It plays into the emotions the audience felt earlier wen looking at the children, making them consider how important food is to the kids and to everyone worldwide.

When most people see a picture of a starving child, they feel sad, empathetic, and want to make a difference. World Vision uses appeals to pathos and rhyming in its ad to catch its viewers' attentions and make them think about being part of a 30 Hour Famine Event/ make them want to donate money. Nobody want to be hungry, and through World Vision, people can help feed hungry children like they would want to be fed- they help children to receive more than just one pitiful bowl of rice, and hopefully change their lives for the better.

Tow #22- IRB/ "Outliers: The Story of Success"/ Malcolm Gladwell

Everyone wants to be successful, but there may be more to it than we think. Malcolm Gladwell, the author of the New York Times Bestseller Outliers, argues that sometimes being successful is just a matter of luck and circumstance. Through the use of appeals to logos and exemplification, Gladwell gives detailed evidence to support his argument and make his audience reconsider what is really exceptional. 

The majority of Outliers relies on appeals to logos and inductive reasoning. Gladwell structures all of the point that support his argument around facts, statistics, quotes, and his own established, credible analysis of these appeals to logos. For example, when making the point that a person’s birthday is often important to their success, he collects statistics about birthdays across many years and professions, from professional Canadian hockey to the industrial captains of the 19^th century, like Rockefeller and Carnegie. When Gladwell analyzes the circumstances these people were in to make themselves successful, he uses facts as background knowledge to prove their success or explain how their success was “measured”. This background and these statistics work well with all the exemplification in Outliers as well, addressing counterarguments and making his own arguments at the same time.

The exemplification in Malcolm Gladwell’s argument is both interesting and vital as evidence. While they work well with statistics and other facts, they also provide real stories to Outliers that make the book seem like a collection of more than just theories on success. Since the book is psychological, the book would be very scientific and methodical, perhaps even boring, without these examples. But exemplification does more than just mix with logos to form the backbone of Gladwell’s book; Exemplification adds a bit of pathos too by adding a sense of reality and emotion to the book. The people in the examples were real/are real people, like us, and have experienced success, meaning that if we find ourselves in similar situations, or make the most of our lives, we too can be successful.

Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers is a psychological, subtle “self-help” kind of book that uses appeals to pathos and exemplification to argue that success may be more complicated and circumstantial than we think. It makes its readers think about the true meaning of success while still connecting to its readers through common information and entertaining stories. It is the kind of nonfiction book that doesn’t really seem like a nonfiction book, suggesting that certain things, for some reason, are just successful. 

Tow #21- The Republic/ "The Allegory of the Cave"/ Plato

Everyone asks questions and/or has questions they want answered. Philosophers were famous for asking them, most notably Socrates, and by extent, Plato, through his Socratic dialogues. Nearly as famous as his dialogues, however, was Plato's allegory "The Cave", comparing people living a primitive life in a cave to everyday people in the real world. Plato artfully uses Socrates' comparison and imagery, along with questions, to explain that people must question the world and try to "leave the cave".

Plato uses many different comparisons to convince Glaucon that the cave is worth leaving. First, he compares the people in the cave to prisoners. The word "prisoner" almost always has a negative connotation, and makes the cave seem harsh, dirty, and undesirable like a prison. Next, Plato (through Socrates) compares the positives and negatives of light and shadows. He claims that even though the light seems wonderful from inside the darkness of the cave, it is painful and hurts the prisoners' eyes after all their time in the cave. It takes a long time for them to finally adjust, get used to the light, and feel comfortable enough to completely walk away. These comparisons argue that people have trouble accepting new ideas or challenging their old ideas. Overall, though, leaving the cave and questioning life will be worth the pain and the positives.

Plato also uses imagery to argue that people must question life and stop believing only traditional ideas. First, he mixes his comparisons of the cave to a prison with imagery, then transitions to describe the world outside the cave. The images of the night sky, heaven, the sun, and nature all make leaving the cave appealing, and therefore the allegory of leaving old thoughts and beginning to question oneself.

Plato's allegory "The Cave" is made up of many comparisons interwoven with imagery that make Socrates' ideas of questioning and embracing new ways of thinking seem desirable and ideal. These comparisons and images help Socrates' friend Glaucon to make a decision concerning the allegory and learn about real life at the same time, questioning traditional ways and making "life worth living".

Plato. "Book VII of "The Republic"" Plato's Cave. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.

Tow #20- The Guardian/ "Fail Better"/ Zadie Smith

Reading Goal: Identify Zadie Smith's argument 

Writing Goal: Be able to concisely explain how she makes her argument/what strategies she uses

The best writers in the world can definitely identify good books, and the best readers in the world can definitely identify good writing. However, "good writing" is subjective in many cases; its difficult for a reader to decide what is good writing, and even harder for a writer to decide if his/her own writing is good writing. In her essay "Fail Better", author Zadie Smith argues that great fiction writing is much more personal than we often make it out to be, and that readers today are not good at judging the success of a book, through detailed anecdotes and examples, fiction-like imagery, and rhetorical questions.

Zadie Smith uses both positive and negative anecdotes in her essay to prove that good writing must be personal, and that personal writing is hard to do. Her positive anecdote is used right in the beginning to set up her argument. She uses the story of a young novelist named Clive, who attempts to write a great novel and appears to have all the skills necessary, but is not as successful as he would like/as he thought he would be because he questions himself and how he wants to represent himself in his novel. Smith uses this anecdote as an example to readers of what many writers go through, and builds ethos by acknowledging that she has done similar things, trying to write with personality and sometimes failing. Her negative anecdote comes in later on, as a counterargument portrayed through the eyes of TS Eliot. Eliot believed that writing was "an escape from personality" and what writers should avoid when writing a good novel. These contrasting anecdotes help make Smith's argument seem more valid, proving that most writers do not think of personality as important to writing and, more specifically, to fiction/the novel.

Smith also uses wonderful imagery and rhetorical questions to make her argument. Imagery is a large part of the anecdotes in "Fail Better", as well as the base for her analogies and comparisons. Without this imagery, it would be difficult to connect with the reader, as many have probably not written novels themselves. The rhetorical questions in the essay provide appeals to ethos, logos and pathos, but also are great transitions. Smith tends to use rhetorical questions to make a point or share her own opinion, making her more credible, logical, and connectable to her audience before she continues her opinion or moves towards another point in proving her argument. The questions hook the reader for the next thought, but also tie up the loose ends of the point Smith is making.

Overall, Zadie Smith uses anecdotes, imagery, and rhetorical questions to argue that writing, particularly fiction writing, is dependent on personality/personal writing to be successful. Smith also argues that because many writers are not personal in their writing today, readers cannot be good judges of successful writing and failed writing. Writers should strive to write the best they can, and that requires being personal, not scientific. Until writers can do this, they should be ok with "honorable failure", knowing that great novels are rare and its hard to write one; they should expect to fail, but try to "fail better". 

Smith, Zadie. "Fail Better." Fail Better. The Guardian, n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.