TOW 23 - Make Poverty History (Tim Worstall)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/03/30/make-poverty-history-why-i-buy-things-made-by-poor-people-in-poor-countries/

Many believe it is the goal of economics to rid this world of poverty. There have been theories on how to approach and achieve this altruistic goal; one of the most promising and controversial tactics would be the promotion and integration of impoverished countries into the economy. Tim Worstall uses jovial tone, litotes and syllogism to reason that the hesitance towards this globalization is hypocritical, contradicting the humanitarian policies and values previously established.

Through his almost homey diction, Worstall charms his audience with his text’s cheerful tone. It is unprecedented for an economics article proposing solutions to end poverty to use words like “lovely” or state “the most delicious part of this argument...” With a varied audience, from economic majors to high school students, the affable diction makes Worstall’s text more approachable and the readers are therefore more open to his viewpoint on a controversial subject.

Worstall uses shrewd understatements to undermine opposition’s view on the integration of poorer nations. If words were placed on a spectrum, Worstall would only use words on either of the extremes like “best,” or “worst.” For example, regarding Worstall’s rebuttal to the counterargument that globalization does not address the impoverished in wealthy nations, “the worst that anyone says [about the rise and fall of American wages] is that they have stagnated.” Worstall simplifies the issues and solutions to a simple judgment and claim of value, not only undermining the authority of opposition, but also implanting the idea that his proposal is a simple solution.

Worstall addresses the counterargument through a syllogistic approach and strengthens his argument through this rebuttal. He argues that if people accept that taxing the rich more than the poor is tolerable, and the impoverished in rich nations have a greater income than those in impoverished nations, then therefore it is illogical to criticize the globalization he proposes. This syllogism creates the illusion of a flawless argument, almost like a mathematical proof that is impossible to argue against.

Poverty is a complex issue to address, and there is never an easy answer to solving this problem; Worstall suggests that globalization is the simplest of the most complex answers. It will take time, but the integration of impoverished nations is the best bet to exterminating poverty.  

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/2/1/1359727149695/Poverty-in-Afghanistan-007.jpg

Goals:
Effective analysis, good transitions, appropriate evidence

TOW 22 - The Power of Prescription (Chicago Tribune)

The mental health field is dictated by two professions: psychologists and psychiatrists. Many mesh these two careers together as one, failing to acknowledge the unique qualifications and distinctions of each. The easiest way to distinguish between the two lies in the roots of the words: “-logy” means science or theory while “-iatry” means medical treatment. The Chicago Tribune writers argue that this small distinction is a big deal in the matter of prescription drugs. They argue that, in response to the recent bill passed by the Illinois Senate, psychologists should not be allowed to prescribe drugs because it puts patient safety at risk.

            The Tribune’s arrangement of the editorial overall adds efficiency to the argument. The editorial begins with background information, then its own thesis, evidence, and reiteration of the thesis along with others who believe the same. After introducing the reader to the issue at hand, and explaining why it is an issue, the tribune leaves no room for interpretation by directly stating its belief. It goes on to prove why that opinion is correct and then by reiterating that that’s what these professionals, such as various mental agencies, believe and so does the Tribune.

            Arrangement is a precisely used tool even in the sentence structure of the editorial. One sentence that particularly stands out is when the Tribune introduces the issue: “Now, psychologists — who are not doctors — seek that power.” The inclusion of the word creates a sudden tone to the psychologists’ demand; the interruption of the dashes makes the writer’s insertion seem almost sarcastic. The way the writer constructed this sentence, along with many others, serves a direct purpose to support the idea that psychologists should not be allowed to write prescriptions.

            The use of professionals’ opinions through quotations adds credibility to the Tribune’s claim that psychologists should not have the same prescription privileges as psychiatrists. The article quotes, for example, Dr. Joan Anzia, who oversees psychiatric training at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Her cited opinon supports the idea that psychologists should not prescribe because they would be “grossly inadequate education be allowed to prescribe a substance that will alter the function (and sometimes the structure) of their bodies and brains." The fact that a professional supports this makes the reader nod their head in agreement.

            The overall arrange, syntax, and quotations used by the Chicago Tribune all support its claim that psychologists should not be given the power of prescription that belongs to psychiatrists and other doctors.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-prescribe-mental-health-drugs-illiinois-edit-03-20140322,0,4679590.story

TOW 21 - Lip Sync Battles (Jimmy Fallon)

When you’re asked what you do for fun, you realize that the ways we entertain ourselves are so strange. Humor is the most entertaining way to take your mind of real world issues and complications, and while it may seem trivial, it can be critical to maintaining our mental health. One way I regulate my cerebral well-being is by watching Jimmy Fallon Lip Syncing Battles. In the lip sync battle with Joseph Gordon Levitt and Stephen Merchant, Jimmy Fallon and his guests use stylistic choices and serious tones to give their viewers a break from reality with entertainment. 

The way you define stylistic choices in writing is not be entirely the same as what you would call it in video, but nevertheless it is still effective. In this case, the three comedians choice of songs says a lot about their goal for the viewer. The songs chosen were tremendously popular at some point within the past thirty years, targeting a wide audience that will immediately connect with and enjoy the show. As they go onto lip sync, they are rousing nostalgia within the audience while poking fun at what we used to enjoy in a lighthearted fashion. With every inevitable laugh provoked, as heard in the studio audience, there is proof that these three are doing their job of entertaining.

These humorists use a mockingly serious tone which makes their work even more sidesplittingly hilarious. The fact that they chose their songs, they knew how ridiculous they would seem performing them, and they treated it as if they were serious musicians makes the performances infinitely better. How they perform their songs is almost ironic: seeing a tall, lanky man like Stephen Merchant swinging his hips to a fierce song by Beyoncé seems like the epitome of unexpected. Almost startling, the commitment Merchant displays is so unanticipated that it adds to the performance’s humor overall.

A person’s sense of humor is specific to him or her as an individual, but judging by the studio audience’s reaction, I can’t be the only person to crack up. Humor is the perfect way to fix a bad day or forget your problems, and in this sense entertainment is the best form of procrastination.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4ajQ-foj2Q)

TOW 20 - Anti-Smoking Advertisement (CONAC)

Ever since elementary school, the perversion of smoking has been emphasized. Through tragic retellings by loved ones, or with the school nurse’s plastic model of a smoker’s lung immersed in sludge, children are taught that smoking is neither pretty nor cool. Why does no one teach the adults that? In its 2013 advertisement promoting awareness towards smoking, the Chilean Corporation Against Cancer (CONAC) uses children’s innocence to take a stand against adult's recklessness. Through commanding imagery and succinct sentence structure, CONAC's advertisement forces smoking adults to realize the universal effect of their actions. 

The suffocating bag of smoke, the child’s empty wail, the nothingness of the background – everything about this image demands attention. The striking anguish on the child’s face causes even a cursory glance to induce shock and heartache. After further investigation, what seems to be a plastic bag killing the child, a common method of suicide, is actually a shroud of smoke engulfing his head. The suicide by suffocation contrasts the portrayed innocence of this child to show that this boy did not have a choice. The image emphasizes the effect of smoking, specifically secondhand smoke, is more pervasive and impacts not just the smoker.

There are two simple sentences in this advertisement, but it is guaranteed that they will stick with you: “Smoking isn’t just suicide. It’s murder.” CONAC could have gone on about the harmful side affects of smoking, but they didn’t.  They didn't use the more formal “it is,” but rather they chose a contraction. The structure adds a dramatic intensity that creates mixed emotions in the reader, such as distress, remorse, angst and shame.  By keeping the message short and not necessarily sweet, CONAC gets its message across and packs a punch. The impact of smoking slowly sinks into the reader – the few words in the sentences, like suicide and murder, have a powerful ripple effect of resonation.

Smoking has always been off limits like the cookie jar teetering on the top shelf that’s just too high to reach. CONAC’s advertisement transforms that cookie into the glob of artificial sugar and bulging fat that it is.