TOW #23-Historic Letter

Source: http://marxists.org/archive/zola/1898/jaccuse.htm

   

          In 1894, military officer Alfred Dreyfus was accused of providing secret military information to Germany via a secret “memo.”   In his open letter to the President of the French Republic Emile Zola speaks out against what he deems the unjustified imprisonment of Dreyfus by pointing out the miscarriage of justice that occurred, explaining an affair that proved Dreyfus to be innocent but was largely ignored, and enumerating the wrongdoings of those involved in the Dreyfus case, attempt to convince the President of Dreyfus’ innocence. 

          Zola begins his letter by identifying commander Paty de Clam as the main orchestrator of the Dreyfus investigation, and the one who ultimately turned into an “affair.”  Zola accuses de Clam of using several unethical methods in an effort to get Dreyfus to confess, among which were things such as shocking Dreyfus into confessing to threatening the man’s wife if she should protest her husband’s arrest.  “One could not conceive of the experiments to which he subjected unhappy Dreyfus, the traps into which he wanted to make him fall, the insane investigations, monstrous imaginations, a whole torturing insanity."  However, de Clam was not alone in this miscarriage of justice.  He had three main accomplices, Generals Mercier, De Boisdeffre, and Gonse, who, at the very least, were guilty of failing to ensure that justice would be carried out fairly.

            Next, Zola cites the Esterhazy affair as another example of Dreyfus' innocence. Three years after Dreyfus was (unjustly) convicted, a new suspect was introduced: Commander Esterhazy.  After an investigation, it became known that Esterhazy was the true perpetrator of the crime for which Dreyfus had been found guilty of.  However, the war department did all it could to cover up for Esterhazy.  Accusing Esterhazy would have meant a reopening of the Dreyfus case, which would result in, “the department of war collapsing under public contempt." This meant that those in command knew that Dreyfus was innocent, but “kept this appalling thing to themselves," and even sought to conceal it using the media and their positions of influence. According to Zola, this only deepened the guilt of the military department and those involved, because neglect now turned to an outright concealment of the crime.

            The letter finishes with Zola recapping the reasons for Dreyfus’ innocence by issuing accusations against those who convicted Dreyfus of a crime he didn't commit. Zola accuses the military department and the judge/jury of the trial of being affected by the feelings of antisemitism, making them already biased toward Dreyfus (a Jew) before the trial had even begun; the military officials involved in the miscarriage of justice and then the concealment of a possible correction to this wrong; and  the handwriting experts who provided a study of the memo of submitting falsified reports/evidence.  

            Through his letter, Zola seeks to bring the French President's attention to a grave miscarriage of justice that had been committed in the French military. To do this, he cites the illegitimacy of the investigation, the cover-up attempt by high ranking military officials, and recaps the various crimes the convictors of Dreyfus themselves are guilty of. Zola speaks out for Dreyfus' innocence, and was ultimately successful. Not long after the publishing of  J'Accuse in a public French newspaper, Dreyfus' case was reexamined, culminating in his ultimate acquittal.   

TOW #21-Visual-Samsung

      This is an advertisement for the Samsung Mp3 player. The presence of the company's logo in the bottom right hand corner lends this ad an immediate appeal to ethos, since Samsung is a very well-known electronics brand. The ad itself is effective mainly due to how striking its image is. The picture of a miniature person within the ear of a normal-sized person would cause most people to stop in confusion and take a closer look to understand. Upon closer inspection, is assumed that the miniature figure is a singer or rapper of some sort. Perhaps not noticeable at first is the black cord that runs from the foot of the miniture male. The cord is symbolic of an earphone cord. The implication is that the miniature singer is representative of an earbud in someone's ear.
      Further analysis will reveal the true meaning behind this advertisement. It is really a clever idea by Samsung. It implies that the Mp3 player is so good that it will sound like the singer of the song being listened to is actually right inside the ear of the listener. This is an attempt to convince consumers of the impressive sound quality of the Samsung Mp3, and it may work with many consumers who only spend a moment or two to consider the ad.
      However, a key flaw in this ad is actually what the ad is based on. According to this analysis, the miniature person represents an earbud. Therefore, this ad could be perceived as actually an advertisement for a pair of earphones, earphones so good that it makes it sound as if the music is right in the listener's ear. Thus someone who took that spin on the add, would only be confused by the mention of the Mp3 player in the lower right hand corner of the ad. In fact, there is no Mp3 player visible anywherein the advertisement. This represents a kew weakness that this ad holds. If it were an ad for a pair of earphones, it would be extremely effective. As it is, as an ad for Samsung's Mp3 player, it is not as effective an argument when analyzed closely. Luckily for Samsung, most people who look at this ad will not be doing an in-depth rhetorical analysis. When taken in with just a cursory glance, this ad is safely effective as a means of promoting the product. However, anyone who has taken Mr. Yost's English class will not be fooled.

TOW #20-IRB Rhetorical Analysis-Pelzer (part I)

Reading goal: identify prominent/relevant rhetorical devices
Writing goal: clearly analyze/offer evidence for each device

      This portion of David Pelzer's memoir, the first half of the second book in his trilogy, describes how he was rescued from his abusive home by concerned teachers, placed in his first foster home, and the trial/events leading up to the trial that ultimately freed him from his abusive mother. In this part of his book, Pelzer uses a distinctive dedication, a flashback in the present tense, and unsophisticated diction to describe his own personal journey, and to encourage awareness about cases of child abuse that often go unseen or unrecognized.
      The Lost Boy features a dedication that is distinct in several ways, making the book itself stand out immediately. Instead of a simply, few-lines dedication like most books contain, Pelzer's book holds many names and titles. Most importantly, it features "the teachers and staff who rescued me [Pelzer]," "the angel of social services," and his own parents, among many other friends and mentors. The first two dedications, to his teachers and social worker, show immediately that Pelzer went through experiences that many others have not, and show also that he wishes to show those people the utmost gratitude for helping him. The dedication to his parents may be surprising to many readers, because in his first book, A Child Called "It," Pelzer's parents are described as neglectful, on his father's part, and physically/verbally abusive on his mother's part. The addition of their names in his book, shows Pelzer's willingness to forgive those who hurt him, and that he has not turned bitter toward them, as most people might have done. The full description of his journey toward forgiving his parents is described in his final book of the trilogy, A Man Named Dave."
      The first portion of The Lost Boy is told as a flashback to the day before Dave's rescue by his teachers. He describes how, after suffering numerous of his mother's cruelties (all observed by his father, but not stopped), he ran away. However, his freedom was short lived, as he was found by a policeman who located his home and returned him there. The flashback ends with Dave's final thought of, "I have no home." (Pelzer, 32). The entire flashback is told in the present tense and from Dave's point of view. The effect of his use of the present is to make his audience feel as if they are witnessing what he is at the moment it is happening. During the parts where he describes the abuses he undergoes, such as "as solid slap to my [his] face," his reader's can feel as if they are in the same room with him as silent observers. His readers are given a first hand look into a world they may have never realized existed before, and after they have seen it, it would not be easily forgotten.
      The remaining portion of the first half of the book is Dave's description of his dealings with his social worker, first foster, and the trial that ultimately freed him. It is told from a first person point of view like the beginning of the book, but this time it is in the past tense. The diction he uses to describe this portion of his life is distinct in that it is simplistic and unsophisticated. Much like the language a child might use when recollecting a certain event. This is not due to any writing deficiencies on Pelzer's part, but rather on purpose. He wanted his book told from his point of view at that moment in time, and he was in his early teens during these events, and so his diction is that of a young boy. He even mentions the cause for this in his author's notes. He says that,"...the perspective of this book is based on life from ages 12-18." His use of his perspectives at the time of the events he is describing enables his readers to recognize his slow maturity throughout the book, with the diction at the end of the book being more advanced than in the beginning.
      David Pelzer's entire trilogy is not meant to appeal solely to the pathos of his readers. He does not desire pity for himself specifically. His purpose in describing the trials and tribulations he went through, many of them disturbing to most people, is to inspire sympathy for ANY child undergoing anything like he went through, and outrage at the perpetrators of child abuse. To be sure, he wants to appeal to his readers' sense of emotions, but not for himself. His intent is for his audience, when reading his life's story, to be struck by the atrocities he suffered and want to take action to prevent anything of the sort happening again.
      While most people have indeed heard about child abuse, on the news, in commercials, and murmuring of it in everyday conversation, it is likely that very few realized the true extent and truth of the crime before reading Pelzer's book. The trilogy would have opened thousands of eyes, bringing to the forefront an issue that was previously in the back of many people's minds, lurking but never fully manifesting. A person who previously sent $10 a month to an organization against child abuse advertised on the television, believing they had done all they could, would now see that so much more is required to battle child abuse, and subsequently donate more or join an organization committed to helping abused children directly. If Dave's books can affect even one person in such a way, or save a single child from a world of pain and degradation, then they would have been worth the effort.
      I was fiercely affected by Dave's first book, A Child Called "It," and have been again by his second book. His descriptions of his life are simplistic yet deeply moving. It is impossible to believe that anyone who has ready any of the books in his trilogy could walk away without being affected in some way. For me personally, I realized that, no matter how hard my life is, it could never compare to that of an abused child, making me more grateful for every luxury I have that I take for granted, that another kid might only ever dream of having. Dave's books are extremely moving and inspirational, showing the true resilience of the human spirit when facing seemingly impossible odds.

TOW #19-"paid-what-you're-worth"

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/paid-what-youre-worth_b_4964290.html

      The subject of workers and their wages has been a source of controversy for hundreds of years, pitching employers against employees, and highlighted by the never-ending demand of laborers for higher wages. This article by Robert Reich discusses the myth that people's salaries reflect their worth as workers. In it, Reich uses statistical data and successive counterarguments to refute and discredit  this idea.
      Throughout this article can be found statistics on different companies and the wages they pay or paid in the past, data which Reich uses to facilitate his argument. He begins by pointing out that today, American CEO's are paid almost 300 times the salary of the average worker. According to the "paid-what-you're-worth" principle, this can only mean that, "They must be worth it or they wouldn't be paid this much." Reich announces his stance, i.e. against this belief, when immediately after wards he catergorizes it as "dangerous myth." He then goes on to analyze Wall Street, citing that Wall Street paid it's workers around $26.7 billion in just bonuses in 2013. His question regarding this large figure: "Are Wall Street bankers really worth it?"
      Reich mentions that 50 years ago, GM employees were paid an average of $35 an hour in today's money. Today, Walmart is the largest employer of workers, and their employees only get paid about $8.80 per hour. This begs the question whether, "... the typical GM employee a half-century ago was worth four times what today's typical Walmart employee is worth? " Reich's answer is no. The counter he gives to this assumption is that 50 years ago, GM employees had a strong union to bargain with their employers on their behalf. Today, Walmart employees dont have a strong union to gain them better wages. Later in his article, to explain that Wall Street bankers arent actually worth their billions of dollars of bonuses, he says that, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist or even a Wall Street banker to see that the hidden subsidy the Wall Street banks enjoy because they're too big to fail is about three times what Wall Street paid out in bonuses." Thus it is not merely the efforts of workers/bankers themselves that results in their high wages, it is the subsidies that the Wall Street banks they work at have.
      I believe Reich did a good job of pointing out the flaw in the belief that workers are paid only what they're worth. He effectively renders it a true myth by discrediting it. His article is even mor effective due to the fact that it is published on Huffington Post, a well-established, well-known, widely-surveyed website known.