TOW #6 - Fear Not the Coming of the Robots

In Fear Not the Coming of the Robots by Steven Rattner, he discusses the nearly incalculable number of technological advancements in recent years and their effects. With a background in economics, Rattner is credible when he speaks of fears of robots taking the jobs of humans. His purpose in writing this article is to show the public that these automated robots should not be feared and he is able to prove this argument through his use of opposing viewpoints, and his providing of logical reasoning. Early on in his article, Rattner speaks of figures in history who have stated that technology would disrupt society such as Queen Elizabeth and John Maynard Keynes. He says, “So far, of course, they’ve all been wrong. But that has not prevented a cascade of shrill new proclamations that — notwithstanding centuries of history — “this time is different”: The technology revolution will impair the livelihoods of millions of Americans.” (Rattner). Through this viewpoint which stands against his ideas, Rattner is able to create a sort of counter argument that he is able to refute. By previously stating several instances throughout history in which people have feared technology, he is able to set up his argument so he can then point out how all these negative effects never occurred. Later speaking of efficiency he exhibits logic, writing, “Becoming more efficient (what economists call “productivity”) has always been central to a growing economy. Without higher productivity, wages can’t go up and standards of living can’t improve.” (Rattner). By telling the people that technology has increased efficiency, he is able to highlight how this is beneficial. If we are able to become more efficient, jobs will actually become more profitable, not less profitable as some fear, disproving the fears of his opposition. Overall, I believe that Rattner achieved his purpose as he was able to provide effective logic and refute opposing viewpoints which made it easy to understand even by someone who does not have a background in economics.

TOW #5 - Hurricane Donald

In this political cartoon, Peter Schrank who goes by the name SCHRANK, establishes a viewpoint of the presidential candidate Donald Trump.  Peter Schrank is a political cartoonist from Switzerland, and has had many of his works appear in the UK’s Independent on Sunday newspaper, The New York Times Syndicate, and The Economist magazine.  Written during Hurricane Matthew, the political cartoon is geared towards an audience of people involved with and those voting in the 2016 presidential election, as he attempts to illustrate how Donald Trump will negatively affect America.  In order to prove this, he uses symbolism, which helps his tactic in appealing to pathos.  As seen in the cartoon, the hurricane is represented as Donald Trump because you can see his face hidden in the wind.  This hurricane is about to reach the White House, the Capitol Building, and then the Washington Monument.  This symbolism is used to show that if Donald Trump does get elected, his force will destroy the White House and other important landmarks in D.C. which is really quite equivalent to our government. This great symbolism helps to appeal to pathos for any people coming across this quite intriguing cartoon. By comparing Donald Trump to a massive hurricane, which was quite relevant to the time because Hurricane Matthew had made it’s path, it gets the readers to feel quite scared or even angry of what Donald Trump’s path might actually do.  This could then lead to people changing their minds about Trump or even possibly doing anything they can to stop him from getting elected.  This great symbolism helps to appeal to pathos for any people trying to do anything they can to stop him from getting elected.  Both appealing to pathos and using vivid symbolism helps Schrank to achieve his overall purpose of showing the negative effects Donald Trump could bring to office.  In my opinion, I believe that this cartoon is quite effective and very relevant to the time that we are in.  I fully agree with this author, and hopefully it can aid in swaying people’s opinions.  


https://www.nytsyn.com/cartoons/cartoons?channel_id=185#1449152 

TOW #4 - The Gilded Razor

In the memoir, The Gilded Razor, Sam Lansky recounts his addiction to drugs and how it affected his life.  Sam Lansky is an editor at Time. He has written for New York magazine, The Atlantic, Esquire, and Out.  He now is living in Los Angeles, California.  Geared toward an audience of people who have not experienced addiction, he illustrates what addiction is really like, how hard it is, and how badly it can affect yourself and the people around you. Lansky utilizes anaphora and analogies throughout this book to fully demonstrate his purpose.  When Sam is planning to attend a prestigious university known as Princeton, he says, “I could do this. It would be easy.  I was sure of it. I would get through this year, and I would go to a great college, and I would be a successful, functional adult. I was wrong” (Lansky 25). The use of anaphora here helps show that even though Sam was addicted to drugs, he thought that he would still be able to lead a successful life and get into the college he wanted to.  It helps to show that when people have an addiction they don’t recognize how bad it really is, and still believe that they can do anything, which again helps his purpose on giving perspective on addiction.  Lansky also illustrates the use of analogies as a way of explaining concepts better to readers who may not know what it is like.  He says, “This was one difference between writing and drugs: with cocaine, after the first line, other lines followed whether I wanted them or not.  When I wrote, I could control exactly how many lines there were, and when it all stopped” (Lansky 62).  The use of this analogy gives a better explanation of what it is like to be addicted.  It explains two separate subjects by contrasting them in a way that is fully understandable.  I believe that so far, he has fully achieved his purpose by giving his own perspective on addiction from a person who went through it all.  It is a great book!