IRB 3 #1: To Kill a Mockingbird

Title: To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Sections:
1.) Chapters 1 - 10
2.) Chapters 11-20
3.) Chapters 21 - 31
Why?

I chose to read this book because I have heard so many amazing things about it. Not only has it gotten fantastic reviews ever since it was first written, but I also wanted to read this for a long time. I felt like reading this book would not only expand my literary knowledge on the classic readings, but it will also lead me into reading more books alike to this, many which are more of the classics. All in all, it is a great book to read but is especially good to analyze, since I've heard of many fantastic lit device usages in this story!

AOW #15: TSA spot-checks

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-train-searches/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

This piece was about the new, and somewhat invading, regulations and practices of the TSA outside of the airport.  There were many cases where, when people were getting off and on trains in certain cities their bags were getting searched for explosives while the police dogs inspected them. People believed that this was and could potentially be a privacy issue and could go against their privacy rights as US citizens.

The author of this article is Thom Patterson. There isn’t an immense amount of background on Patterson, but by the look of his CNN page, I can see that his hundreds of articles and citations within these articles (of first persona accounts, politicians, etc…) prove his credibility.

The context of this piece would be causal. Simply, this article is a reaction to the constant complaints and first-hand accounts with the TSA’s actions outside of the airport. It could also be causal because it never has to refer to history and, obviously, these opinions were voice afterwards as afterthoughts of the happenings.

The purpose for this article was to inform the people about the TSA’s new actions. It was also a very objective article because it showed both sides of how the TSA is not just for the airport, as shown by its name (Transportation Security Admission), and how the people react to their new action on new grounds. Since it is objective, I believe the purpose was to explain what is happening rather than have a clear-cut opinionated piece.

The audience of this piece would be, in general, people who use public transportation. In a more broad sense, the audience can be people who know who the TSA are and where they usually reside. It would be that kind of audience because in that sense, they would know where the TSA usually are and why this time, it is immensely different.

There are numerous rhetorical elements in the piece, such as definition, objective or 3^rd person omniscient POV, and imagery. First, he begins the entire article with imagery, by describing a scene in which the TSA invades an innocent man’s privacy by allowing his dog to sniff him up and down. This imagery opens up the passage, making the reader want to continue reading with the hint of lit analysis interwoven in. He also wrote in an objective view, showing all sides of the case (somewhat like 3^rd person omniscient in lit) and situation – IE first he starts with how the people feel about the TSA, and how the TSA feels. In the end, he eventually uses definition to support/explain the TSA side of things – by saying that “TSA officials [would] like to point out that the acronym stands for Transportation Security Administration, not the Airport Security Administration”.

I believe that the author did not accomplish their purpose. Although I did learn a good amount about what the TSA were doing to people, I don’t think that the man they interviewed was a prime example of how it bothered people – because he was OK with their reactions. However, even though I do know it  was more of an objective piece, I believe that giving two paradox examples – of an angered citizen against the stubborn TSA – would allow the reader to indulge more into the passage and learn more.

AOW #14: Snickers Commercial

Snickers commercia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sci-RiYuXXk 

This commercial is an advertisement for snickers. In the commercial, the two working men transform into two well known “whiney” celebrities. So, in order to change them back from being whiny – their co-workers give them a snickers to help them stop their hunger and whininess.

The source that this was created from was Mars Inc. which is the company that creates Mars candy bars, such as Snickers. They are credible because they have been around since 1932 when the first Mars factory was created. Because of the immense amount of years they have been around, they are credible because they have experience and a trustworthy team – especially if people keep buying their products (as shown by the over $30billion revenue every year).

The context of this piece would be causal or spatial. It would be causal because you have to have background knowledge on the two celebrities in the commercial to understand the satire. It would also be spatial because although it was “in the moment”, the commercial was overall, more of a reaction to hunger from the work they were previously doing. It would be temporal if they showed how their hunger was created and then had the characters acting hungry rather than just showing the post reaction to the pre occurrence.

The purpose for this commercial was to make people buy Snickers because according to what happened, it can satisfy you’re hunger and make you less whiney and more active.

The audience this was written for would be the hard-working people of America (most likely the “99%”) who normally get hungry in the middle of the day and are looking for a satisfy snack – IE Snickers.

The few rhetorical elements that really stood out to me were communal memory and satire. The communal memory was shown through the two well-know “whiney celebrities”, Rosanne and Richard Lewis. It was also shown when they alluded to the “mid-day hunger” that many Americans have during the middle of their work day. The satire was shown through the things that the celebrities were saying and whining about; IE how Rosanne’s back hurt, then she got hit by the log so her front hurt.

I believe that the author did accomplish their purpose. They did because I know that I was more convinced to buy a snickers now than I was before since I just thought of them originally as just candy bars, where as they now made them seem like something to cease the hunger. Although, I don’t usually eat candy bars as snacks, if I was a regular American consumer, I would most likely go out and buy snickers as snacks now.

Essay

The duties of the people and the duties of the government can only work hand in hand. The people, who create and develop the government, dictate how the government runs; and the government, as the latter, dictated how the people live. Although they seem linked together, as inseparable clauses both the government and its people hone complete opposite tasks. Neither condones one another; they work as opposites until times where they must run together as one.  Three of the most inspiring leaders: John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln all spoke about the obligations of people in society and how much we must work together to form “a more perfect union”. All in all, I am in accordance with these leaders and agree that acting together as a nation is the overall duty of the government, the individual and society as a whole.

            As an individual under democracy, I see first-hand how much power is in the Americans grasp and all of the things we must do in order to help the government prosper.  John F Kennedy, in his inaugural speech, perfectly listed what obligations we have as citizens of a democratic-republic nation. All throughout his speech, he discoursed on the fact that Americans must work together toward the greater good, for the government cannot make peace with the enemies if not all of the people are in accordance. He pinpoints how we are able to use our power to create good in the world, but again, a nation cannot be divided. More specifically, he says that “divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder… or begin anew the quest for peace” (page 1-2). This statement finitely sums up what both I and John F Kennedy believe to be the true onuses of an American: that a divided country cannot bear the burdens of a world power or create the peace necessary to progression. All in all, as Americans (and even as a member of an adverse society) we must stand together as a whole because without peace, there is no victory for anyone; for victory lies in the accordance of individuals for the greater good.

            As previously stated, the government and the individual run two diverse paths of growth towards the same basic goals of development. Although the people do play a large part in the government – such as democracy - the government will usually have the final say of things. Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, was able to further the meaning of government by pressing forward its obligations and what it should be doing. He explained from beginning to end how the people must be a part of society and keep the government alive. However, he unexpectedly throws in the part the government must play in the clamor for nationalism. As a closing he stated “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom [and]… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” (page 2). As a reader, I take the non-perishable government task to be a large task to hold as an individual – so I interpreted it as a duty of the government overall. From this, I believe that the one main obligation of the government to the individuals would be to continually remind them of our strong past experiences and how they brought us to freedom today. I also believe that they must take hold of their citizens to reminisce on the prosperities of the country: the times where the United States – or any nation, for that matter – was successful and how they were able to achieve such success. With these constant reminders of how much the people of a nation must fight for their rights, nationalism grows which eventually bleeds into the individuals obligations to join as a nation and working towards triumph.

Although different, the government and society must correlate; one must depend on the other, but not absolutely. I believe that with a government in place, the people must follow its fair rules and with the people as part of the government, the government must listen to their requests so to still have people as a part of the infrastructure. Martin Luther King elucidated the connection between the government and society and how one must work with the other – even if they may seem corrupt as individual sectors. He showed us that even though the government let the African Americans down initially, they “refuse[d] to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt [and] that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation” (page 1). I found this to be extremely interesting and enlightening because he showed me that the individual’s obligations mesh with the government’s obligations when either one is in need of the other’s aid. As for Martin Luther King, in his case, the African American people needed their rights, so they used their obligation of free speech to change the obligations of the government from segregation to liberation. As the latter, in John F Kennedy’s situation, he used the power and duty of the government of informing the people to change the people’s obligations from fighting to making peace with enemies.

As a whole, the duties of the nation and the duties of its government are seen as two separate outlets of freedom. However, the liabilities of both eventually cross paths when one half, or both halves, of what make up a nation are in need. So I believe that the obligations of an individual and it’s overrule must work as one because “a house divided … cannot stand” or work towards overall success.

IRB 2 #4: Revered Wisdom - Buddhism

This section was about mediation and how the “separation of the body and mind” are truly a large part of Buddhism as a whole. It not only discusses what it is, but it also explains how it is used differently and similarly all throughout Hindu religions. It also touches upon how it came to be and how it altered religions completely and totally. However, the most interesting part was when they listed the steps to full meditation; the end that gets you to the final stage of reincarnation – which I will list in the analysis.
There were an immense amount of stylistic choices in this section that made this part stand out the most from the rest. Since meditation may be a “far-fetched” topic for some people, they used rhetoric to plan it out in a step-by-step fashion so a large audience could understand their discourse. They used: definition, enthymeme, and as previously stated, lists. Definition was used all throughout this part to single out certain words that the audience may not know. For example, they defined the many parts of mediation like “yama…niyama…asanam” as “restraint…observance…posture” (277) to help clarify confusion.  Also, they definition it to emphasize words that the audience knows, but may not know the different meanings and how they connect to the “lesson” of mediation. For example, they defined yoga (a very commonly known word) in two different ways to show how it is used differently. It was explained as “effort” and then as “the suppression of the activities of the mind…[so] the spectator abides in his own form” (275) to show the contrast and connection of how with effort, you can achieve this abidance.
They also included enthymeme within the section as well to connect the chain of thoughts into a coherent flow of ideas. The first enthymeme was about the mind and the soul combination:
Ma: The mind and the soul are combined as one organ
Mi: Since they are combined, the mind controls the soul and allows it to feel emotion.
C: Therefore, meditation – or the freeing of the soul from the mind – allows the mind/soul to cease feelings and be released.
There was also another enthymeme on the meaning of yoga and what it does:
Ma: “The ultimate object [of yoga] is to dissociate the soul from its material envelopes…”
Mi: in two ways “to mortify the body and suppress…appetite … [and] discursive thought…[and] to keep the body in perfect health”
C: Which “are conductive to [untroubled] long life”
In simpler terms, the object of yoga is to rid of material things, and since material things like bad appetite, thought and health are not good for you, then you must rid of them through yoga to live a long, healthy life.
Not only did they use clever, hidden enthymemes to convince yet aid you in your path with Buddhism, but they also used lists as well. One list that I found quite interest and immensely helpful was the one that explained the sectored steps of meditation:
Physical Preparation

1.)    Yama (restraint)

2.)    Niyama (observance)

3.)    Asanam (posture)

4.)    Pranayama (regulation of breath)

5.)    Pratyahara (withdrawing of senses)

Intellectual Preparation

6.)    Dharana (fixing the mind on single object)

7.)    Dhyana (continuous intellectual state from said concentration)

8.) Samadhi (further dhyana – where mind becomes so ID w. thing that consciousness ceases)

Conscious/Unconscious stages of Samadhi

9.) Dharma-megha (conscious – isolation of soul/distinction from its matter is released = karma is no more)

10.) Unconscious Samadhi (falls into trance = emancipation; permanent by death)

IRB 2 #3: Revered Wisdom - Buddhism

This section was exclusively about Buddha’s life from the brief early stages to when he reaches enlightenment. It started off with setting the scene and putting us in the shoes of Gotoma as a child. Apparently a very wealthy child, he was adorned with society’s perception of “the good life” but found that it was far from what really brought peace and happiness. So, in his later years, he decided to go through a period of isolationism, more specifically, a period where he spent most all of his time by himself. They talked about the tree he used to sit under, the scenery that he was very keen on choosing for his meditations. First, to reach enlightenment on his own, he took the monk’s advice and went with suffering. He soon found that after weeks and months of starvation and overwork, death was far closer than enlightenment. He then decided to try a more natural way – a way that few people who reached enlightenment used – through contemplation. After reaching enlightenment, he then decides after much thought, to teach others – which leads into Buddhism itself.

The interesting thing is that many of the rhetorical devices I found in the section were directly mentioned in the text because the author was also rhetorically analyzing other pieces in the midst of it. The few that I chose were: allusion, definition, warrant, qualification, and author’s credibility (persona). As for allusion, there were many direct references to Buddha’s philosophies in order to keep the “story” going. A direct example of where he mentioned allusion was on page 49: “the scanty allusions to his family…are devoid of sentimental touches.” As for definition, it was used all throughout the section to define things like what Buddha really means (“wise one”).  Warrant and qualification were directly mentioned in the section when he was talking about needing strong evidence or a “reality check” in the rhetor’s writing to actually believe the things they say about Buddha’s life. As stated, “The reader…ask[s] … what warrant we have for reading [these readings]” and what “statement[s] need qualification” (pg 44, 45). The persona of both the author and the author’s he cited were both mentioned in the section. Sometimes, the author showed credibility by “flat-out” stating that some facts are wavering, for both the authors he cites and as well as his own.