TOW #24 (IRB) Killing Kennedy part 2

       I finally finished Killing Kennedy, and it was not a disappointment. Few history books captured the same intensity and excitement that this book had. Killing Kennedy, written by Bill O'reilly is mostly about Kennedy's assassination and the events that led up to it, and O'reilly uses dramatic style and a present tense to deliver the history of Kennedy in a thrilling way to the American people.

      What makes this book so interesting is the dramatic tone that O'reilly writes in. At the end of every chapter, O'reilly has a type of dramatic foreshadowing or ending that leaves the reader wanting more or feeling some kind of emotion. At the end of chapter 5, O'reilly ends the chapter with, "Oswald is unhappy that his return to the United States has not attracted widespread media attention...he has no idea that he is being secretly watched by a very powerful concern." At the end of chapter 26, when Kennedy was killed, O'reilly ends with, "He leaves behind a beautiful widow, He leaves behind two adoring young children. He leaves behind a nation that loves him." This style of writing caters to his audience, the common American people. O'reilly wants the American people to know more about Kennedy's assassination, so he has to use an exciting and emotional style of writing that will keep a reader interested and wanting more, a very effective thing to do on O'reilly's part.

      Something really interesting about Killing Kennedy is that it is entirely written in the present tense. "Oswald is unhappy", "Lyndon Johnson does not tiptoe when it comes to foreign relations..", Jackie sobs. Her body jerks as pain courses through her." The present tense makes the entire story realistic, once again appealing to the theme of thrill in the book. A history book written in the past tense makes everything seem long ago and be tiresome and boring to a reader. However, the present tense makes things exciting and action packed. Something seemingly trivial such as changing the tense of the book made a huge impact on the style of the writing and was extremely effective for O'reilly's purpose.

     

 Mr. O'reilly himself

TOW #23 (Visual) WWF Shark Ad

       Pop culture and entertainment has recreated the shark as a savage, blood-thirsty, terrorizing creature, but sharks are relatively passive animals that kill only 5 people a year (compare this to 24,000 people dead from lightning strikes). These animals are a vital part of the ocean's ecosystem and are one of the top predators in the ocean. However, we kill over 8000 sharks a year, mainly for their fins for a favorite Asian dish, shark fin soup. The World Wildlife Fund is trying to put a stop to shark exploitation and uses simplicity to send that message.

     This WWF advertisement's most distinctive element is its simplicity. Simplicity in both image and words. The picture is split into two identical oceans. One has the fin of the shark showing and one has no shark. The audience can instantly tell the difference between the two without much thought because of the obvious contrast between the two pictures. 

     Centered in each of the two images are small white words. The image with the shark says, "Horrifying." The WWF is basing this off of the popular belief that sharks are scary creatures. Although they only kill an average of 5 people a year, the human psyche, because of cultural influences, sees the top fin of a shark and instantly pictures the horrifying shark and the terror a shark causes. 

    The picture with no shark also has white words, "More Horrifying." At first glance, one would wonder, "why would it be more horrifying if there was no shark?" However, an informed citizen, after careful thought, would realize the meaning behind this. The truth in shark exploitation and the rapidly declining number of sharks. The WWF is using this fact as the base in their argument that an ocean with no sharks is even more horrifying than an ocean with sharks. The advertisement is extremely simple, and in this case, with simplicity comes intensity, and the WWF was able to deliver a powerful message because of it.

TOW #22 (Non-Fiction) Protect the Police from Armor-Piercing Bullets from the NYT Ed-Board

America's 2nd amendment allows the right to bear arms. However, there is now less in less need for guns in this developed world. In fact, guns are leading to more problems in America as shootings are becoming more prevalent in the past years. This leads Americans such as one of the authors in the Editorial Board of the New York Times to want gun restrictions. The author uses examples of gun violence and the authority of the federal government to argue for gun limits in America.

The author first uses the recent controversy of 5.56 mm steel core bullets that "can be used in newly adapted handguns to provide lethal force to pierce the vests and body armor used by law enforcement officers" to introduce the topic to his audience by using a current issue. She states that many people are rallying against the production of these bullets since the can pose a great threat to Americans and especially the police force that would have to face these bullets if the bullets got into the wrong hands. The author then reminds the reader of the "schoolhouse massacre of 20 children in Connecticut" that happened two years ago, the Sandy Hook Massacre. By bringing up this horrible incident which was a high point in anti-gun feelings in America, the author appeals to pathos and evokes emotion to further her argument for gun restrictions. The author effectively persuades the reader into seeing her point through both facts and emotion.

The author also appeals to ethos as he refers to the federal government and the action it is taking to place limits on guns in America. Concerning the 5.5.6 mm steel core bullets mentioned earlier, the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives"  sensibly propose[d] banning it in the name of greater gun safety." Also, "the gun lobby is marshaling gun owners and legislative allies to oppose the ban, falsely accusing the Obama administration of exceeding its authority through some backdoor attempt at gun control. The law, however, is clear: Armor-piercing handgun ammunition has been banned since 1986, and the firearms agency has the responsibility to regulate the law’s enforcement." The government is also working on a bipartisan proposal between "Representatives Peter King, Republican of New York, and Mike Thompson, Democrat of California" to extend the government's reach in gun sales and gun checks. By using the American government, the author builds an incredibly strong ethos that cannot by argued against easily. 

                                    5.56mm bullets

TOW #21 (Non-fiction) Mr. Obama’s Historic Move on Cuba

      Towards the end of 2014, America and Cuba broke down the political, social, and economical barriers between the two to begin a new history of America-Cuba relations. Although there are many people in the United States who disagree with what America did, The Editorial Board of the New York Times believes it was the proper move and an important change to American foreign policy. The Editorial Board of the New York Times used quotes from the leaders of both nations and factual evidence to show how America made the right choice in opening up to Cuba.

      The New York Times uses quotes from both Obama and Raul Castro, the Cuban president, to praise this new step to America-Cuba relations. Obama says, “These 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked. It’s time for a new approach”. This shows how practical Obama was in his decision and how he made the right decision. Obama made the right choice to open up to Cuba. Castro says, “We must learn the art of coexisting with our differences in a civilized manner". This quote from the Cuban president shows Cuba's willingness to cooperate with America and escape from the isolationism that hindered the nation's growth for 50 years. By using the words of the two leaders of both nations, both willing to cooperate with each other, shows how America-Cuba relations might turn out for the better.    The New York Times also use evidence that appeals to logos to show the leaps America and Cuba are making in diplomacy and policy. The Obama administration said the the changes in relations have, "the potential to empower Cuba’s growing entrepreneurial class by permitting commercial and financial transactions with the United States. The White House also intends to make it easier for American technology companies to upgrade the island’s primitive Internet systems, a step that could go a long way toward strengthening civil society." The Cuban government also released, "unnamed American intelligence agent who had been imprisoned for nearly 20 years and Alan Gross, a 65-year-old American subcontractor who had been imprisoned in Havana since 2009." While the US, "released three Cuban spies who have served more than 13 years in prison. The prisoner swap paved the way for a policy overhaul that could become Mr. Obama’s top foreign policy legacy." Factual evidence like this shows the effort the two nations are putting into the relations and commending them for the work they are doing to establish healthy connections with each other. The New York Times' Editorial Board believes that Obama made the right move in ending America and Cuba isolationism and, "in all likelihood, history will prove Mr. Obama right."

President Raul Castro addressing the Cuban public on the new policies with America