Rhetorical Analysis two, Salam

Rhetorical Analysis

Title: The Death of Macho

Author: Reihan Salam

Date: 28 October 2012

Topic: The global shift of male dominance in market production to women earners.

Analysis of Argument: 

Exigence: The author describes the financial crisis of 2008's strongly negative impact on employment of men in typically male dominated sectors of the economy. The author predicts the effects of the financial crisis with regard to gender.

Intended Audience: The author speaks mainly to layman readers interested in the economy and gender relations.

Purpose: To inform the audience of change within the economy, and to make predictions based on observable evidence.

Claims: The author claims that the financial crisis will result in lasting change from a historically male-dominated society to a female-dominated one. The author claims that historically masculine behavior caused the financial crisis. Further, the previously high-risk masculine behavior will be replaced with more feminine leaders. The author claims that men in the present will be left with the option to adapt or resist the change. 

Main Evidence:

Rhetorical Analysis:

Writer's Strategy 1: The author begins by citing the large losses of jobs in typically male dominated markets, such as the housing industry. Additionally, this under or unemployment has lasting and damaging effects on male psychological health. 

Reader Effect 1: The scale and gravity of the disproportional effects on men versus women captures the reader's attention and focuses them on the author's predictions. 

Writer's Strategy 2: The author points out that the electorate of previously male dominated countries replace their leaders with women leaders. This is exemplified by Iceland's electing the first openly lesbian prime minister. 

Reader Effect 2: The reader acknowledges the rising power of women policy makers, and it follows that these changes in top world leadership will be reflected at all echelons.

Writer's Strategy 3: The author makes predictions about men's choices in their role in the future. The author proposes that men can adapt to their new role as a gender somewhat subordinate to women, or resist change. 

Reader Effect 3: The reader embraces a world view that allows for a dissolution of permanent male dominance over women in political and economic realms. 

My Response: I found this article very timely and logically sound. The author's strategy is strongly formulated as almost every claim is substantiated with verifiable evidence, with the exception of his predictions. Particularly of interest is the historic examples such as the New Deal, compared with the current administration's economic stimulus plan. It follows to compare these examples with other nations policy for economic growth, like China. 

Readers Response Two

In "Two ways a man can hurt a woman", the author, Kilbourne discuses the effect of advertising and the media on women. In general, the essay appears as an introduction to themes probably discussed later in the book, and serves to inflame the reader's conscience. I assume the later, because the tragically nebulous nature of the author's writing obscures her purpose.

Kilbourne bemoans the victimization of women through the media through sexist arguments. “Wouldn't it be wonderful if, realizing the importance of relationships in all of our lives, we could seek to learn relational skills from women and to help men develop these strengths in themselves?” (Kilbourne 578). To which I should reply, Pardon my gender ma'am, I didn't realize that I needed an emotional education from a woman.

Kilbourne goes further to describe the objectification of both male and female bodies, but she's quick to point out that feminine objectification is worse. Kilbourne describes it as a form of cultural abuse. To me, this position is morally indefensible. I feel that the word abuse is much too strong to attach to advertisements depicting unattainable bodies. Additionally, those advertisements she describes as pornographic seem to be a matter of taste. If we police material on the basis that some persons may find it pornographic, don't we limit advertisers ability to practice free speech? She describes the advertisements as enabling sexual abuse, but she does not describe a link between advertisements and media and abusive behavior. Perhaps she does so later in the book, but in this passage, that association seems like an illogical leap. Ultimately, all abuse is wrong, and we as a society need resolution. However, to suggest such an association is irresponsible at best. Perhaps I would have found suggestions for improvement to be appropriate, given the nature of her argument.

Kilbourne also describes a link between addiction and abuse, although the link is unsubstantiated with academic citation. One can assume that she includes her “cultural abuse” as one of the forms of abuse. A crucial byproduct of power is responsibility. To upraise exposure to advertisements as abuse seems to lessen the responsibility of the observer for their actions upon exposure. We can agree that the reasons advertisers promote their products in the way that they do is because they are successful. If we suggest that people who purchase these products do so outside their control, we lessen their responsibility and power.

In effect, Kilbourne's arguments pertaining to advertising and their effect on women are ill-based. The points she raises about the magnitude and pervasiveness of violence are potent, but the connections she draws with regard to advertisements do not follow. If these connections are formed more fully in the book to which this passage belongs, that would change my critique. But that begs the question, why would such a passage be included in a collection of writings such as this textbook? This passage is challenging, and it questions things I held as self evident. While captivating, it fails in the art of persuasion.

Cutting Corners on Education (Final Polish)

Benjamin Meade

English 2

Stacy Knapp

7 October 2012

 Cutting Corners on Education

It's hard to imagine California as an under-educated state. Some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the entire world are located in this state. That high standard of education has led to the growth of Silicon Valley, and other economic juggernauts located in California, as they may be content in the knowledge that California will continue to produce a skilled labor class, capable of supporting industry. But unsustainable spending, funded by irresponsible borrowing has led to fiscal insolvency. California spends more than it makes through taxes and federal subsidies, and the financial crisis of 2008 has revealed skeletons in our closet. Some believe in raising revenue and others believe in reducing spending. Ultimately, the quality of education in California's public schools is what's at stake in regards to Proposition 30. Most of the rhetoric available concerning Proposition 30 in the media presents a pluralistic point of view. I suggest Proposition 30 is a band-aid, and it only temporarily stops the bleeding. Proposition 30 is a good start, but it's not good enough, and if it passes, we as a state will have this argument again.

In response to California's budgetary crisis, Governor Jerry Brown has introduced Proposition 30, an amendment to the California constitution, which raises taxes for education and public safety to balance the budget. Advocates of Proposition 30 say raising taxes is the only way to sustain California's educational responsibilities. The state has already cut funding for other programs deeply, and argues no other budget cuts are realistic. That seems logical as the sum expenditure on K-12 and higher education equals close to 53% of California's spending from the general fund, according to the May revision to California's fiscal year 2012-2013 budget. This information is available at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf . It seems reasonable to presume that any new cuts would need to occur in the largest portion of the state government's budget, namely, education.

One problem with Proposition 30 is that it is projected to bring in revenue just above what would have been cut by automatic trigger cuts which will occur January 1, 2013 if Proposition 30 does not pass. That means that Proposition 30 raises estimated revenue only proportional to the deficit to be cut on January 1. Other government agencies are funded proportional to need rather than our cash on hand approach. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is one such agency. The VA funds disability and other veteran's benefits proportional to the number of service members in need. As president of the Veterans of Cabrillo College, I have first-hand experience with filing claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Administrative costs are subject to executive discretion, but the benefits to be paid out by service members are projected and funded accordingly. In essence, Proposition 30 prevents degradation to our current system, but it is not forward-looking. 

We should project our schools' needs, and then fund them according to need. The official title and summary of Proposition 30 states, “In many years, the calculation of the minimum guarantee is highly sensitive to changes in state General Fund revenues. In years when General Fund revenues grow by a large amount, the guarantee is likely to increase by a large amount. A large share of the state and local funding that is allocated to schools and community colleges is 'unrestricted,' meaning that they may use the funds for any educational purpose.” Doesn't it seem likely that in the event more revenue is generated than needed, it could be spent unnecessarily simply because funds were available? We should consider funding on a cost per student basis.

Additionally, Proposition 30 distributes money for public health and safety services to local governments due to realignment. Programs like substance abuse rehabilitation, law enforcement and prisons are some of the programs included. According to the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30, figure three, about 99 million dollars is allocated to prevent spending reductions in public safety programs like those stated above. So, what do city police grants and prisons have to do with public education? I propose these are separate issues and need to be legislated separately. Maybe we should spend that extra money educating our citizens, rather than policing them. The public safety provisions within Proposition 30 also weaken it to opposition attack. This endangers the proposition for those voters who respect the cost of a good education, and are willing to pay for it.

Another problem with Proposition 30 is the nature by which revenue is collected. Proposition 30 raises taxes uniformly in a sales tax increase of ¼ of a cent for all sales, but raises income tax on earners above 250 thousand or 500 thousand for those filing jointly by 1-3%. Opponents of Proposition 30 abjure the disproportional nature of the taxes. Families earning more than half a million dollars per year can afford to pay private school tuition, and aren't dependent on public schooling. In effect, wealthier families are charged to pay for middle and lower income families' education. Opponents could call this type of tax a redistribution of wealth. If Proposition 30 is seen as a redistribution of wealth, we risk alienating those whose support is most needed in a time of fiscal insolvency, the wealthy. This makes Proposition 30 less resilient to opposition attack. Taxing only the super wealthy seems political and it fuels the opposition's fire. Shouldn't all of us pay our fair share of taxes?

As a California community college student, my major, astronomy, is in jeopardy at Cabrillo. I look at our sporting facilities, the new gym and the Visual and Performance Art complex and I'm reminded of what's important to our community. Mathematics is still taught on chalkboards, while I see pianos in almost every classroom in the music hall. I think it's great to fund the study of the arts, but it reminds me that my major has a one person department, and it seems likely to be one of the first programs cut. I will vote yes for Proposition 30, in lieu of a better amendment. If we allow our system of public education erode, we disallow upward mobility for lower and middle class families. Our youth will inherit a caste system in which lower income families can not elevate their standing through education. But we should be aware that Proposition 30 does not go far enough to make California competitive as it used to be. Proposition 30 is also vulnerable, and its passage is a big maybe. We need a durable amendment that can withstand partisanship. That means taxation proportional to income, and funding proportional to need. We also need to legislate purposefully, and respond to unique budgetary concerns with unique legislation. We can't lump in all of our potential cuts and make meaningful decisions.

Cutting Corners on Education

Benjamin Meade

English 2

Stacy Knapp

7 October 2012

 Cutting Corners on Education

It's hard to imagine California as an under-educated state. Some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the entire world are located in this state. That high standard of education has led to the growth of Silicon Valley, and other economic juggernauts located in California, as they may be content in the knowledge that California will continue to produce a skilled labor class, capable of supporting industry. But unsustainable spending, funded by irresponsible borrowing has led to fiscal insolvency. California spends more than it makes through taxes and federal subsidies, and the financial crisis of 2008 has revealed skeletons in our closet. Some believe in raising revenue and others believe in reducing spending. Ultimately, the quality of education in California's public schools is what's at stake in regards to Proposition 30. Most of the rhetoric available concerning Proposition 30 in the media presents a pluralistic point of view. I suggest Proposition 30 is a band-aid, and it only temporarily stops the bleeding. Proposition 30 is a good start, but it's not good enough, and if it passes, we as a state will have this argument again.

In response to California's budgetary crisis, Governor Jerry Brown has introduced Proposition 30, an amendment to the California constitution, which raises taxes for education and public safety to balance the budget. Advocates of Proposition 30 say raising taxes is the only way to sustain California's educational responsibilities. The state has already cut funding for other programs deeply, and argues no other budget cuts are realistic. That seems logical as the sum expenditure on K-12 and higher education equals close to 53% of California's spending from the general fund, according to the May revision to California's fiscal year 2012-2013 budget. This information is available at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf . It seems reasonable to presume that any new cuts would need to occur in the largest portion of the state government's budget, namely, education.

One problem with Proposition 30 is that it is projected to bring in revenue just above what would have been cut by automatic trigger cuts which will occur January 1, 2013 if Proposition 30 does not pass. That means that Proposition 30 raises estimated revenue only proportional to the deficit to be cut on January 1. Other government agencies are funded proportional to need rather than our cash on hand approach. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is one such agency. The VA funds disability and other veteran's benefits proportional to the number of service members in need. As president of the Veterans of Cabrillo College, I have first-hand experience with filing claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Administrative costs are subject to executive discretion, but the benefits to be paid out by service members are projected and funded accordingly. In essence, Proposition 30 prevents degradation to our current system, but it is not forward-looking. 

We should project our schools' needs, and then fund them according to need. The official title and summary of Proposition 30 states, “In many years, the calculation of the minimum guarantee is highly sensitive to changes in state General Fund revenues. In years when General Fund revenues grow by a large amount, the guarantee is likely to increase by a large amount. A large share of the state and local funding that is allocated to schools and community colleges is 'unrestricted,' meaning that they may use the funds for any educational purpose.” Doesn't it seem likely that in the event more revenue is generated than needed, it could be spent unnecessarily simply because funds were available? We should consider funding on a cost per student basis.

Additionally, Proposition 30 distributes money for public health and safety services to local governments due to realignment. Programs like substance abuse rehabilitation, law enforcement and prisons are some of the programs included. According to the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30, figure three, about 99 million dollars is allocated to prevent spending reductions in public safety programs like those stated above. So, what do city police grants and prisons have to do with public education? I propose these are separate issues and need to be legislated separately. Maybe we should spend that extra money educating our citizens, rather than policing them. The public safety provisions within Proposition 30 also weaken it to opposition attack. This endangers the proposition for those voters who respect the cost of a good education, and are willing to pay for it.

Another problem with Proposition 30 is the nature by which revenue is collected. Proposition 30 raises taxes uniformly in a sales tax increase of ¼ of a cent for all sales, but raises income tax on earners above 250 thousand or 500 thousand for those filing jointly by 1-3%. Opponents of Proposition 30 abjure the disproportional nature of the taxes. Families earning more than half a million dollars per year can afford to pay private school tuition, and aren't dependent on public schooling. In effect, wealthier families are charged to pay for middle and lower income families' education. Opponents could call this type of tax a redistribution of wealth. If Proposition 30 is seen as a redistribution of wealth, we risk alienating those whose support is most needed in a time of fiscal insolvency, the wealthy. This makes Proposition 30 less resilient to opposition attack. Taxing only the super wealthy seems political and it fuels the opposition's fire. Shouldn't all of us pay our fair share of taxes?

As a California community college student, my major, astronomy, is in jeopardy at Cabrillo. I look at our sporting facilities, the new gym and the Visual and Performance Art complex and I'm reminded of what's important to our community. Mathematics is still taught on chalkboards, while I see pianos in almost every classroom in the music hall. I think it's great to fund the study of the arts, but it reminds me that my major has a one person department, and it seems likely to be one of the first programs cut. I will vote yes for Proposition 30, in lieu of a better amendment. If we allow our system of public education erode, we disallow upward mobility for lower and middle class families. Our youth will inherit a caste system in which lower income families can not elevate their standing through education. But we should be aware that Proposition 30 does not go far enough to make California competitive as it used to be. Proposition 30 is also vulnerable, and its passage is a big maybe. We need a durable amendment that can withstand partisanship. That means taxation proportional to income, and funding proportional to need. We also need to legislate purposefully, and respond to unique budgetary concerns with unique legislation. We can't lump in all of our potential cuts and make meaningful decisions.