Essay 4.2

Mark Melchior

Eleanor Henderson

Academic Writing

April 17, 2011

Adjusting the Antenna:

Why Radio is Still a Relevant Medium

            My first thought when I saw the phrase ‘Rush Night’ was pretty blurry. I didn’t exactly know what to expect when I got there. Coming through my first week of freshman year the Park auditorium was still as daunting as day one. It has this odd, dark, eerie glow to it at first. You get used to it eventually. However, the misshapen, back-straining seats will always be the same. Twenty-some people were on the stage bullshitting about this and that. What they, “are all about here at WICB.” I was sold.

            This was the first experience I had encountered with working on a radio station, but that doesn’t mean I’ve been ignorant to it while growing up. I love radio. Everywhere I have ever been, radio was never to far behind. It was radio that introduced me to some of my favorite bands like Green Day and Sublime. It was radio that delivered me the news of the Iraq invasion a few years ago. Today, it’s radio that I dedicate my life to.

            “You will shadow veteran DJ’s. You will board operate a 2 hour shift. You will take a written exam and then, finally, must produce an exceptional demo tape.” These words from the station manager were enough to drive almost half the crowd away. I guess not everyone was as excited as I was, and so I put my name on the e-mail list. I didn’t know at the time it would eventually submerse me into one of the country’s most valuable media outlets ever invented. I shadowed, I operated the board, and wooed the executive staff with my charm. I even asked questions! I seem to never ask questions. Yet still there I was, practicing talk-sets in my room while my roommate was gone. Further on, in my still infantile, radio career I was finally awarded a DJ shift from two until four in the morning.

            At this point I had surrounded myself with so many “radio-junkies” that I didn’t realize how much danger FM radio was actually in. Apparently, people haven’t got the same taste for radio any more. The data even shows it. I looked into listenership ratings and was stunned by the information. In 2000 the peak hour of radio was 7 AM with 26 percent of potential listeners tuning into stations (Arbitron). Years later in 2009, radio listeners drifted and sent the percentage plummeting to around 18 percent (Arbitron). This has been made possible by contributions from alternative music sources. Before, most records were promoted via radio and hearsay. You had to listen if you wanted to know what the recording industry was working on. Now, with the Internet, people are able to search for new music themselves, download it illegally, and share it with their friends. Inventions like the iPod and Internet radio have also added to the problem. In addition, radio stations are losing listenership because they are “too commercial” and play a ton of advertisements. The issue there is that radio stations are losing money, because the recording industry is losing money. This loss can be attributed mostly to the fall of record sales because of downloads. To make up for this, radio stations sell advertising space more so than normal. It’s an unfortunate trap that stations and DJs face.

            Shortly after I started ‘DJ-ing’ I decided to work with the promotions team as well. It usually consists of a weekly meeting for about an hour or so. It was through working with the promotions department that I discovered what the Ithaca community has to offer. The promotions team and I have gone out into Ithaca countless times. We play music, have contests, and listeners get to win prizes. That’s always fun right? I always thought that it was cool to get out and be a part of the community, and explore the interest of my listeners and see what they enjoy. Apparently this has been one of WICB’s most respected qualities. In one of my classes a girl proposed that radio, “is mostly irrelevant now,” and that, “it’s not as modern or as good as something like Pandora.” According to her radio just couldn’t keep up any more. That night I read a few advertisements on the air for our iPhone app, Facebook, and Twitter pages. All while seated in a brand new studio with shiny microphones, a new iMac computer, and the sophisticated AudioVault music software.

            Weekly meetings generally consist of preaching about how to stay current. I was told that just like television we still have an obligation to stay up to date on news and information. Every week I find myself talking about a new story. It could be an event or concert coming up in town. After DJ-ing for a while I started to notice that listeners rely on me. There are plenty of people who have given thanks to our crew for one reason or another. Not that long ago a woman came up to me and recognized me by my voice. She said she loved my show and appreciated that I exposed her to some new music. This reliance proved to me that there are still people dependent on radio whether it’s for news, traffic, weather, music, or events. We happily answer this dependence by constantly trying to improve.

            Author and media expert Douglas Rushkoff said that good radio stations get “back in the box.” What he means is that instead of rebranding your station, or coming up with fancy ways to promote yourself will never suffice for content improvement (Ramsey, par. 1). Basically, instead of thinking about how to advertise better, think about ways to improve the actual product. We strive to serve the listener by treating them more like equals than our consumer. After all they are the ones who keep us in business. Rushkoff said of audiences, “I think what we’re starting to realize is that consumers are not just targets but they are really members of your company’s culture,” (Ramsey, par. 2). Still despite all of these great factors of radio, some still say that caring for the audience and staying current isn’t enough for them.

            One week, in class, we discussed how the proliferation of services like Pandora and other sources of music entertainment would affect FM radio. One student said that they liked Pandora better because it was more convenient and accessible. Another said that they prefer their iPod to radio because their music is “better”. I brought this kind of statement to some fellow DJ’s and staff members and they all had a similar answer. Things like Pandora can’t do what we can. We have the benefit of personality. We have an actual person behind the microphone. Working hard to select music and envelope you into the music world. DJ’s are not just people who put music on the air for your drive home. They are actors, performers, intellectuals and fanatics of music. Like it or not, there is a reason why certain people get behind the mic and others don’t. There will always be an attachment to FM radio because listening to a robot doesn’t achieve that same effect.

            Coming to the end of my freshman year I realized that radio influenced my behavior more than I could have expected. Becoming a DJ, in reality, was only a tiny step in learning what radio has to offer. It’s apparent that not only am I a DJ, but also a community leader and a performer. People look up to individuals like us because we have responsibility and care about our listeners. By this time I have developed an unparalleled sense of duty to provide entertainment for those who are loyal to the station. To me, the story of my DJ career has taught me some valuable lessons. I may not be able to say that I’m a YouTube sensation, or a television star. However, I know that as a radio personality I can say that radio certainly offers more than just the next song.

Works Cited

Arbitron. “Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio 2000 Edition.” Arbitron             (2000): 4-7. PDF file.

Arbitron. “Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio 2009 Edition.” Arbitron             (2009): 94. PDF file.

Rushkoff, Douglas. “How to Make Radio Relevant Again-An Interview with Media Futurist Douglas Rushkoff.” MarkRamseyMedia.com. MarkRamseyMedia.com, 2005. Web. 17 April, 2011.

Essay 4.1

Mark Melchior

Eleanor Henderson

Academic Writing

April 17, 2011

Adjusting the Antenna:

Why Radio is Still a Relevant Medium

            My first thought when I saw the phrase ‘Rush Night’ was pretty blurry. I didn’t exactly know what to expect when I got there. Coming through my first week of freshman year the Park auditorium was still as daunting as day one. It has this odd, dark, eerie glow to it at first. You get used to it eventually. However, the misshapen, back-straining seats will always be the same. Twenty-some people were on the stage bullshitting about this and that. What they, “are all about here at WICB.” I was sold.

            This was the first experience I had encountered with working on a radio station, but that doesn’t mean I’ve been ignorant to it. I love radio. Everywhere I have ever been, radio was never to far behind. It was radio that introduced me to bands like Green Day and Sublime. It was radio that delivered me the news of the Iraq invasion a few years ago. Today, it’s radio that I dedicate my life to.

            “You will shadow veteran DJ’s. You will board operate a 2 hour shift. You will take a written exam and then, finally, must produce an exceptional demo tape.” These words from the station manager were enough to drive almost half the crowd away. I guess not everyone was as excited as me. I put my name on the e-mail list. I didn’t know at the time it would eventually submerse me into one of the countries greatest media outlets ever invented. I shadowed. I operated the board, wooed the executive staff with my charm. I even ask questions! I seem to never ask questions. Yet still there I was, practicing talksets in my room while nobody was around. Further on in, my still infantile, radio career I was awarded a DJ shift from two until four in the morning.

            At this point I had surrounded myself with some many “radio-junkies” that I didn’t realize how much danger FM radio was actually in. Apparently, people haven’t got the same taste for radio any more. The data even shows it. I looked into listenership ratings and was stunned by the information. In 2000 the peak hour of radio was 7 AM with 26 percent of potential listeners tuning into stations (Arbitron). Years later in 2009, radio listeners drifted and sent the percentage plummeting to around 18 percent (Arbitron).

            Shortly after I started ‘DJ-ing’ I decided to work with the promotions team as well. It usually consists of a weekly meeting, about an hour or so. This is how I discovered the Ithaca community. The promotions team and I have gone out into Ithaca countless times. We play music, have contests, and listeners get to win things. That’s always fun right? I always thought that it was cool to get out and be a part of the community. To explore the interest of my listeners and see what they enjoy. Apparently this has been one of WICB’s most respected qualities. In one of my classes a girl proposed that radio, “is mostly irrelevant now,” and that, “it’s not as modern or as good as something like Pandora.” According to her radio just couldn’t keep up any more. That night I read a few advertisements on the air for our iPhone app and our Facebook and Twitter pages. All while seated in a brand new studio with shiny microphones, a new iMac computer, and the sophisticated AudioVault music software.

            Weekly meetings generally consist of preaching about how to stay current. I was told that just like television we still have an obligation to stay up to date on news and information. Every week I find myself talking about a new story. It could be an event or concert coming up in town. After DJ-ing for a while I started to notice that listeners rely on me. There are plenty of people who have given thanks to our crew for one reason or another. Not that long ago a woman came up to me and recognized me by my voice. She said she loved my shows and appreciated that I exposed her to new music. This reliance proved to me that many people are still dependent on radio whether it’s for news, traffic, weather, music, or events. We answer this dependence by constantly trying to improve.

            Author and media expert Douglas Rushkoff said that good radio stations get “back in the box.” What he means is that instead of rebranding your station, or coming up with fancy ways to promote will never suffice for content (Ramsey, par. 1). My experience with radio has been exactly that. We strive to serve the listener by treating them more like equals than our consumer. After all they are the ones who keep us in business. Rushkoff said of audiences, “I think what we’re startin to realize is that consumers are not just targets but they are really members of your company’s culture,” (Ramsey, par. 2). Still despite all of these great factors of radio, some still show that caring for the audience and staying current isn’t enough for them.

            One week, in class, we discussed how the proliferation of services like Pandora and other automated Internet radio stations would affect FM radio. One student said that they liked Pandora better because it was more convenient and accessible. I brought this kind of statement to some fellow DJ’s and staff members and they all had a similar answer. Things like Pandora can’t do what we can. We have the benefit of personality. We have an actual person behind the microphone. Working hard to select music and envelope you into the music world. There will always be an attachment to real radio because listening to a robot doesn’t achieve that same effect.

            Coming to the end of my freshman year I realized that radio influenced my behavior more than I could expect. Becoming a DJ, in reality, was only a tiny step in learning what radio has to offer. It’s apparent that not only am I a DJ, but also a community leader. People look up to individuals like us because we have responsibility and care about our listeners. By this time I have developed an unparalleled sense of duty to provide entertainment for those who are loyal to the station. To me, the story of my DJ career has taught me some valuable lessons. For me, I may not be able to say that I’m a YouTube sensation, or a television star. However, I know that as a radio personality I can say that radio certainly offers more than just the next song.

Works Cited

Arbitron. “Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio 2000 Edition.” Arbitron             (2000): 4-7. PDF file.

Arbitron. “Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio 2009 Edition.” Arbitron             (2009): 94. PDF file.

Rushkoff, Douglas. “How to Make Radio Relevant Again-An Interview with Media Futurist Douglas Rushkoff.” MarkRamseyMedia.com. MarkRamseyMedia.com, 2005. Web. 17 April, 2011.

Reflection 3.2

I haven't really though about the Rogerian assignment since it was turned in. I've been a little preoccupied with other schoolwork to really acknowledge what I have accomplished with it. Now that I think about it, I really appreciate learning Rogerian style. I may not have produced the greatest Rogerian argument ever but it is a very effective writing tool that I can now use. My parents always said of arguments, "Kill them with kindness." I think by writing a Rogerian piece I have learned how to do that much more efficiently. Overall, I think it will have been the most difficult essay this semester. However, I think I am most pleased with this one.

Essay 3.2

Mark Melchior

Eleanor Henderson

Academic Writing

March 28, 2011

 Public Sector Struggle:

A Rogerian examination of Wisconsin Union Troubles

            The American workforce has come a long way since the days of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Working conditions have made incredible advancements, along with salaries, benefits, and health insurance. Trade unions have been an essential piece of the public sector workforce since their establishment in early American history, and they have always proven that tradesmen need organizations to remain strong against private companies. Recently, Republicans legislature in Wisconsin has given an impressive blow to union power.

            It’s a shame to see such a great nation struggling. Between several military conflicts, trillions of dollars in debt, unemployment, and a wounded economy, America has an enormous struggle to overcome. All over the nation governments are piecing together solutions to solve these issues. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker has devised a plan to save money and aid the state budget. However, his plan involves restricting the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin unions. Under this bill, labor unions are no longer able to negotiate job condtions other than base wages. Other restrictions include no negotiation of overtime, premium, or merit pay. Municipal union employees are actually now no longer able to strike, “Nothing contained in this subchapter constitutes a grant of the right to strike by any municipal employee or labor organization,” (Wisconsin Act 10, 27). Other provisions of the bill include prohibiting unions to receive union dues from paychecks and annual elections on whether or not workers want to remain unionized (Lewis, par. 19, 20). These are only a few of the new laws passed in late March.

            Mr. Walker believes that his plan is in the correct interest of the state. I am happy to see that a politician is risking his reputation, and chance of reelection in order to carry out what he considers is the best solution. It takes an incredible effort to run a government and to keep a state, or nation, united. I have to say that I’m impressed with his endeavor to aid the state and country he loves. Some goals of the plan are to create an abundance of private sector jobs. He aims for about 250,000 to be created by the year 2015. In addition, he claims that this bill will actually save taxpayers money. According to news reports, Governor Walker has already amassed an incredible disapproval rating in the short time he has been in office. I applaud Mr. Walker not because he is considered crooked or unfair, but that this is an indication of his hard work. Although the bill would seem wrong, he has proven that he is not afraid to take action against a problem. Also, Mr. Walker has continued to remain visible to his people by appearing on television and speaking to protestors in the capitol in Madison, and this is an admirable trait.

            Unfortunately, Governor Walker hasn’t quite won my vote yet. Unions are absolutely essential to our society. Since their introduction they have been what is likely the most important force in improving the lives of public workers. I said before that I believe this budget plan is wrong and I am not without support. A recent survey from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute shows that 65 percent of those polled believed that a more acceptable compromise should be determined. A major factor in the poll was the 70% of Independent voters that said they are against the new laws (WPRI). Some may be asking, what do unions really do? What do they provide? Almost every line of work has a union. Nearly everything from actors to construction workers belongs to a union. Growing up in a union family I was exposed to their importance very early. Blue Collar work is not exactly glamorous, nor is the lifestyle that comes with it. There were certainly days that my parents did not get to eat because they had four children to feed. I can remember the fear in Mom and Dad’s eyes when they told us he was laid off from work. I recall standing in line for school “lunch tickets”; A small piece of paper that amounted, basically, to a food stamp in the school cafeteria. Forty-cent lunches don’t exactly make you the coolest kid in the lunchroom either. Nonetheless, these people need those bargaining rights to provide for their families. We’re not seeing any construction workers get rich. They pay their taxes and provide for the community as well. They provide great lessons for children also. I learned that what is valued most in the workforce is dedication, and to not be lazy. It’s unfair to make these hard-working people suffer whilst companies like General Electric paid zero dollars on taxes in 2010 (Tapper, par. 1). Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was quoted saying, “Let’s not forget who we are really talking about. We are talking about police officers that put their lives on the line to make our families safe and elementary school teachers who make sure our kids know their ABC’s,” (Lewis, par. 7).  These people are some of the most essential members of our community. It is in the nature of unions to negotiate, because it was that principle that they were formed. By limiting the core of their power we could be prone to a private sector with enormous dominance. Worker’s rights are incredibly important. In a country that was founded on freedom, and the right to choose, this bill is awfully counterintuitive to the nature of American philosophy.

            I, of course, am not a politician like Mr. Walker. I do not know enough about public policy to make the decisions that he and his committee do. I’m certain that, like myself, he truly values and cares for the well being of Americans. The GOP has a history of “union-busting” but I doubt this is his contribution to that cause. Limiting union power is wrong, and I like to think that he is not doing so out of malice or discontent. I trust that he wishes that he could save the jobs of those hard working people that have been laid off or provide support for public schools that have lost thousands in government funding. I believe he is simply doing so to improve our society by what he considers is the right thing. We see that unity is the one of the most important factors in repairing a nation. There no single policy that everyone is going to agree with. I think that it’s safe to say, however, with such an immense opposition to Governor Walker’s plan there has to be a more effective way to mend Wisconsin’s $3.6 billion deficit. If a different plan of action is not as effective, than maybe it could be more respectable. There have to be more ways to save money than damaging union’s ability to negotiate terms. It is, after all, one of the main reasons they are able to thrive.

            We cannot afford to add to America’s extensive list of socio-economic problems. Sadly, because Governor Walker pushed Act 10 into law this is exactly what has happened. What I would ask of the Mr. Walker, and other state officials, is that they make it a point to find solutions that will not hurt the equality in American business. There is no way around the struggle that is ahead. It has been made clear by our government that we will have to make some sacrifices. However, I think that it’s fair to say that solutions should be in the interest of all Americans.

Works Cited

Bauer, Scott. “Wisconsin Union Law Published Despite Court Order.” ABCNews.com.             26 March, 2011. ABC News. Associated Press. Web. 27 March, 2011.

Lewis, Finlay. “Should Unionizing Be a Purely Private Right?” CQ Weekly 14 March             2011: 565. Print.

Tapper, Jake. “General Electric Paid No Taxes in 2010.” ABCNews.com. ABC News.             March 25, 2011. Web. April 13, 2011.

2011 Wisconsin Act 10. State of Wisconsin. Legislative Reference Bureau. 28 March             2011. Web.

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. “Public Opinion Backs Unions.” CQ Weekly             (2011): 566. Print.

Reflection 3.1

I guess I can say that I was mistaken when I thought it would be somewhat easy to write a rogerian argument. I actually struggled to form my argument for a while and I'm still not sure if I even succeeded in developing an appropriate paper. It took a lot more patience to write this one, because I constantly caught myself writing a more traditional argument. Another difficult aspect of this paper was using research. Although it was a struggle I think that I learned more than I originally thought from writing my paper.

Essay 3.1

Mark Melchior

Eleanor Henderson

Academic Writing

March 28, 2011

 Public Sector Struggle:

A Rogerian examination of Wisconsin Union Troubles

            The American workforce has come a long way since the days of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Working conditions have made incredible advancements, along with salaries, benefits, and health insurance. Trade unions have been an essential piece of the public sector workforce since their establishment in early American history, and they have always proven that tradesmen need organizations to remain strong against private companies. Recently, Republicans legislature in Wisconsin has given an impressive blow to union power.

            It’s a shame to see such a great nation struggling. Between several military conflicts, trillions of dollars in debt, unemployment, and a wounded economy, America has an enormous struggle to overcome. All over the nation governments are piecing together solutions to solve these issues. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker has devised a plan to save money and aid the state budget. However, his plan involves restricting the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin unions. Under this bill, labor unions are no longer able to negotiate job condtions other than base wages. Other restrictions include no negotiation of overtime, premium, or merit pay. Municipal union employees are actually now no longer able to strike, “Nothing contained in this subchapter constitutes a grant of the right to strike by any municipal employee or labor organization,” (Wisconsin Act 10, 27). Other provisions of the bill include prohibiting unions to receive union dues from paychecks and annual elections on whether or not workers want to remain unionized (Lewis, par. 19, 20). These are only a few of the new laws passed in late March.

            Mr. Walker believes that his plan is in the correct interest of the state. I am happy to see that a politician is risking his reputation, and chance of reelection in order to carry out what he considers is the best solution. It takes an incredible effort to run a government and to keep a state, or nation, united. I have to say that I’m impressed with his endeavor to aid the state and country he loves. Some goals of the plan are to create an abundance of private sector jobs. He aims for about 250,000 to be created by the year 2015. In addition, he claims that this bill will actually save taxpayers money. According to news reports, Governor Walker has already amassed an incredible disapproval rating in the short time he has been in office. I applaud Mr. Walker not because he is considered crooked or unfair, but that this is an indication of his hard work. Although the bill would seem wrong, he has proven that he is not afraid to take action against a problem. Also, Mr. Walker has continued to remain visible to his people by appearing on television and speaking to protestors in the capitol in Madison, and this is an admirable trait.

            Unfortunately, I have to add that I am not offering any support for Governor Walker. Unions are absolutely essential to our society. Since their introduction they have been what is likely the most important force in improving the lives of public workers. I said before that I believe this budget plan is wrong and I am not without support. A recent survey from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute shows that 65 percent of those polled believed that a more acceptable compromise should be determined. A major factor in the poll was the 70% of Independent voters that said they are against the new laws (WPRI). Some may be asking, what do unions really do? What do they provide? Almost every line of work has a union. Nearly everything from actors to construction workers belongs to a union. Growing up in a union family I was exposed to their importance very early. Blue Collar work is not exactly glamorous, nor is the lifestyle that comes with it. Nonetheless, these people need those bargaining rights to provide for their families. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was quoted saying, “Let’s not forget who we are really talking about. We are talking about police officers that put their lives on the line to make our families safe and elementary school teachers who make sure our kids know their ABC’s,” (Lewis, par. 7).  These people are some of the most essential members of our community. It is in the nature of unions to negotiate, because it was that principle that they were formed. By limiting the core of their power we could be prone to a private sector with enormous dominance. Worker’s rights are incredibly important. In a country that was founded on freedom, and the right to choose, this bill is awfully counterintuitive to the nature of American philosophy.

            I, of course, am not a politician like Mr. Walker. I do not know enough about public policy to make the decisions that he and his committee do. I’m certain that, like myself, he truly values and cares for the well being of Americans. The GOP has a history of “union-busting” but I doubt this is his contribution to that cause. Limiting union power is wrong, and I like to think that he is not doing so out of malice or discontent. I trust that he wishes that he could save the jobs of those hard working people that have been laid off or provide support for public schools that have lost thousands in government funding. I believe he is simply doing so to improve our society by what he considers is the right thing. We see that unity is the one of the most important factors in repairing a nation. There no single policy that everyone is going to agree with. I think that it’s safe to say, however, with such an immense opposition to Governor Walker’s plan there has to be a more effective way to mend Wisconsin’s $3.6 billion deficit. If a different plan of action is not as effective, than maybe it could be more respectable. There have to be more ways to save money than damaging union’s ability to negotiate terms. It is, after all, one of the main reasons they are able to thrive.

            We cannot afford to add to America’s extensive list of socio-economic problems. Sadly, because Governor Walker pushed Act 10 into law this is exactly what has happened. What I would ask of the Mr. Walker, and other state officials, is that they make it a point to find solutions that will not hurt the equality in American business. There is no way around the struggle that is ahead. It has been made clear by our government that we will have to make some sacrifices. However, I think that it’s fair to say that solutions should be in the interest of all Americans.

Works Cited

Bauer, Scott. “Wisconsin Union Law Published Despite Court Order.” ABCNews.com.             26 March, 2011. ABC News. Associated Press. Web. 27 March, 2011.

Lewis, Finlay. “Should Unionizing Be a Purely Private Right?” CQ Weekly 14 March             2011: 565. Print.

2011 Wisconsin Act 10. State of Wisconsin. Legislative Reference Bureau. 28 March             2011. Web.

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. “Public Opinion Backs Unions.” CQ Weekly             (2011): 566. Print.

Rogerian Pre-Writing

Idea
 -I plan to write about the union struggle in Wisconsin. Their rights are being taken away and I think it's an important and relevant topic to explore.
 -Opposition has removed union collective bargaining rights because it is part of a plan to decrease Wisconsin's debt. However, I think that there are better ways to fix their financial crisis than layoffs and removing their ability to negotiate.

Reflection 2.2

It's been a while since I have done a reflection on my rebuttal argument. I suppose my overall feeling about the assignment is confident. I think I crafted a unique argument that doesn't rely on the apparent tension of refutation. It was necessary to find research that I could create and argument around, as opposed to supporting an established claim with research. I think that the article I chose offered the best chance to learn about rebuttals because it made me think somewhat creatively about my argument.

Rebuttal 2.2

Mark Melchior

Eleanor Henderson

Academic Writing

February 27, 2011

Why Chinese Mothers Are Just As Good As Any Mother

            The Wall Street Journal recently published an article titled “Why Chinese Mothers are superior.” The story, written by Yale Law Professor Amy Chua, is an excerpt from her book Battle Hymn of The Tiger Mother. Throughout the article she presents a very elementary analysis between the parenting skills of “Chinese” parents versus “Western” parents. By the end of the piece Professor Chua has presented an argument that lacks any sufficient evidence, and condemns and insults the western society she is currently a part of. Cultural backgrounds are no means of deciding who has a better, more successful parenting style.

            To begin, Chua attempts to support her claim by using some evidence. This evidence, however, provides almost no convincing properties, as they are mostly only her personal experiences with her children. She references a study in the fourth paragraph, “In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of Western mothers said either that “stressing academic success is not good for children” or that “parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun,” (Chua, par. 4). I’m not exactly a mathematician, but I hardly agree that the opinions of 35 American women account for all of Western society. These types of bogus examinations occur throughout Chua’s article without citing any type of reliable source. She goes on to say that not one of the Chinese mothers agreed with the Americans. As with the Americans, I would say that 48 Chinese women barely account for the entire nation of China. Another example Chua uses is when she says, “Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children…Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams,” (Chua, par. 4). The National Council on Family Relations published a study that concluded that parents from different ethnic backgrounds are actually quite similar. Chinese and Caucasian, in this case the Western, parents both placed a high importance on their child’s school performance, following family rules, and carrying out responsibilities on their own. It also indicated that there was an emphasis on parents urging their kids to be kind and considerate (Julian, McKenry, Mckelvey 34). It would appear that as far as priorities, parents of all backgrounds tend to lean in similar directions. The data shows that almost all parents desire and ask the same qualities of their children. The method used to achieve that obedience is often much different.

            Most psychologists tend to agree that there are basically three types of parenting styles: permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian. Amy Chua is the definition of authoritarian parenting. It is categorized by the parent’s total domination of the child’s preferences, and also includes making decisions for the kids, along with commanding them to perform in a certain way. For the militant Amy Chua, this meant her girls were never allowed to, “have friends over, have a sleepover, not play piano or violin, choose their own extracurricular activities,” (Chua, par. 1). In addition, she also believes, “it is crucial to override their preferences…interrogating and spying…override all of their children’s own desires and preferences,” (Chua, par. 5, 14, 16). If you spend your life aggravated, and focused on everything your child does it will breed an adult that cannot see responsibility or make decisions for themselves. It is good to guide kids as they grow so they make the right decisions. However, it is detrimental to a person’s psyche if they are never taught key lessons like what is right versus what is wrong, how to communicate with others, and how to make an educated and informed decision. In the first issue of the Journal of Education and Human Development, from Louisiana Tech University, several psychologists conducted an analysis of parenting styles. They describe the effects of each technique, and for authoritarian they listed qualities of authoritarian children, “may be rearing children to believe that they are not responsible for what happens to them…have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression…tend to rear girls who are less independent, boys who are more aggressive, and children who appear discontent…more extrinsically motivated,” (Marsiglia, Walcyzk, Buboltz, Griffith-Ross, 5). Of course this research does not apply to every single authoritarian family, and it’s important to note that the majority still suffers from these conditions.

            The Chinese have a very rich, cultured history that goes much further back than any American history textbook. They believe in traditions of strength, honor, and family. It’s important to realize that the values of a culture are passed through generations. This clearly is the case with Mrs. Chua. She is not a bad parent by any means for conducting her children in the authoritarian manner. Everyone is entitled to raise a child as they see fit. These cultural standards were held with great significance in her family, and they are still significant to her. Throughout her article, she presents several personal experiences to assert that dominance is the best policy. Unfortunately, the evidence she uses to state how superior she is falls short. Chua fails to define the difference between a good parent and a bad parent. The reality is that her cultural background has nothing to do with her success as a parent. I come from an Irish-Italian family and believe that my heritage has little to do with how I was raised.

            Mrs. Chua uses experiences as a mother to try and hold some strength in her argument. I cannot exactly combat in the same way seeing as I am not a mother, nor will I ever be. However, I have had experiences with my parents that offer similar results, through less intrusive parenting. For example, Chua cites an instance where her daughter could not learn a song on the piano. So, Chua decided to descend upon her daughter, forcing the music and attacking her saying that her sister could play it at that age. They went for hours back and forth, fighting the whole time, until finally she was able to play the piece (Chua, par. 17-24). In another instance, Chua called one of her girls “garbage” in an attempt to motivate her (Chua, par. 7).

            In my family, my parents utilized more authoritative style. This style consists of a blend of demands and expectations. Parents explain things rationally, but do not leave enough room for a child to make an argument. It is a rational-based approach to teaching kids to be responsible and altruistic (Marsiglia, Walczyk, Buboltz, Griffith-Ross 7). For example, when my brother was in middle school he was having trouble with times tables. So, my father coached him constantly, much like Mrs. Chua had done with her daughter on the piano. When my brother finally started succeeding my parents backed off and allowed him to grow, and develop good academic practices. If he stumbled they would help enough to get him on track again. Never did my parents force us to do an activity, or shut down our voice. They stressed communication, emotion, and independence. Now years later, my three siblings and I are all in higher education, with completely different interests. My sister Jenny is a working nurse with a job offer and generous salary. My other sister April is finishing art school, and my brother Eric is in his first year at medical school. He is also contracted with the United States Air Force. I am now a communications student, working on television shows and also a DJ at school. All of this success came more from expectations and natural motivation rather than enforcement.

            Amy Chua’s argument in “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior” presents an interesting look at a particular parenting style. She says it’s important for total domination of children otherwise things will go awry. However, her argument never truly cites any sufficient evidence to support that this is the best way to raise a child. Furthermore she fails to convince the audience that a Chinese mother is better than anything else. In fact, most parents are on the same level. Through professional studies we can see that the majority of parents want the same things for their child. We also see that extreme styles of parenting, such as authoritarian, do not always work. The same success can be accomplished through trust, guidance and affection. It does not matter whether they are Black, White, Chinese, or Hispanic. Good parents are ones that show unconditional love and support for their children.

Works Cited

Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.” Online.wsj.com.

            8 January 2011. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 18 February 2011.

Julian, Teresa; Mckenry, Patrick; Mckelvey, Mary. “Cultural Variations in Parenting:             Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American             Parents.” Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies.             Vol. 43. No. 1 (1994): 30-37. January 1994. Web. 24 February 2011

Marsiglia, Cheryl; Walczyk, Jeffrey; Buboltz, Walter; Griffith-Ross, Diana. “Impact of             Parenting Styles and Locus of Control on Emerging Adults’ Psychological             Success.” Journal of Education and Human Development. Vol. 1. Issue 1             (2007): N. Pag. 2007. Web. 1 March 2011.

Reflection 2.1

While I was researching I found it difficult to find relevant research. It took some rethinking on my part to adjust my paper, in order to incorporate data. I think the research guide on ithacalibrary.com definitely help out with finding research quickly. It was weird because I found myself writing much more than I expected towards the end of my paper. I also tried to use more acknowledgement and response than some of the articles we discussed in class. For my next draft I think I'll look back into organization just to make sure it's okay, and check up on grammar and diction.

Mark Melchior

Eleanor Henderson

Academic Writing

February 27, 2011

Why Chinese Mothers Are Just As Good As Any Mother

            The Wall Street Journal recently published an article titled “Why Chinese Mothers are superior.” The story, written by Yale Law Professor Amy Chua, is an excerpt from her book Battle Hymn of The Tiger Mother. Throughout the article Chua presents a very elementary analysis between the parenting skills of “Chinese” parents versus “Western” parents. By the end of the piece Professor Chua has presented an argument that lacks any sufficient evidence, and condemns and insults the western society she is currently a part of. Cultural backgrounds are no means of deciding who has a better, more efficient parenting style.

            To begin, Chua attempts to support her claim by using some evidence. This evidence, however, provides almost no convincing properties, as they are mostly only her personal experiences with her children. She references a study in the fourth paragraph, “In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of Western mothers said either that “stressing academic success is not good for children” or that “parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun.” (Chua 4). I’m not exactly a mathematician, but I hardly doubt that the opinions of 35 American women account for all of Western society. These types of bogus examinations occur without citing any type of reliable source. She goes on to say that not one of the Chinese mothers agreed with the Americans. As with the Americans, I would say that 48 Chinese women hardly account for the entire nation of China. Another example Chua uses is when she says, “Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children…Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.” (Chua 4). The National Council on Family Relations published a study that concluded that parents from different ethnic backgrounds are actually quite similar. Chinese and Caucasian, in this case the Western, parents both placed a high importance on their child’s school performance, following family rules, and carrying out responsibilities on their own. It also indicated that there was an emphasis on parents urging their kids to be kind and considerate (Julian, McKenry, Mckelvey 34). It would appear that as far as priorities, parents of all backgrounds tend to lean in similar directions. The data shows that almost all parents desire and ask the same qualities of their children. The method used to achieve that obedience is often much different.

            Most psychologists tend to agree that there are basically three types of parenting styles: permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian. Amy Chua is the definition of authoritarian parenting. It is categorized by the parent’s total domination of the child’s preferences, and also includes making decisions for the kids, along with commanding them to perform in a certain way. For the militant Amy Chua, this meant her girls were never allowed to, “have friends over, have a sleepover, not play piano or violin, choose their own extracurricular activities,” (Chua 1). In addition, she also believes, “it is crucial to override their preferences…interrogating and spying…override all of their children’s own desires and preferences,” (Chua 5, 14, 16). If you spend your life aggravated, and focused on everything your child does it will breed an adult that cannot see responsibility or make decisions for themselves. It is good to guide kids as they grow so they make the right decisions. However, it is detrimental to a person’s psyche if they are never taught key lessons like what is right versus what is wrong, how to communicate with others, and how to make an educated and informed decision. In the first issue of the Journal of Education and Human Development, from Louisiana Tech University, several psychologists conducted an analysis of parenting styles. They describe the effects of each technique, and for authoritarian they listed qualities of authoritarian children, “may be rearing children to believe that they are not responsible for what happens to them…have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression…tend to rear girls who are less independent, boys who are more aggressive, and children who appear discontent…more extrinsically motivated,” (Marsiglia, Walcyzk, Buboltz, Griffith-Ross, 5) Of course this research does not apply to every single authoritarian family,  and it’s important to note that the majority still suffers from these conditions.

            The Chinese have a very rich, cultured history that goes much further back than any American history textbook. They believe in traditions of strength, honor, and family. It’s important to realize that the values of a culture are passed through generations. This clearly is the case with Mrs. Chua. She is not a bad parent by any means for conducting her children in the authoritarian manner. Everyone is entitled to raise a child as they see fit. These cultural standards were held with great significance in her family, and they are still significant to her. Throughout her article, she presents several personal experiences to assert that dominance is the best policy.

            Mrs. Chua uses experiences as a mother to try and hold some strength in her argument. I cannot exactly combat in the same way seeing as I am not a mother, nor will I ever be. However, I have had experiences with my parents that offer similar results, through less intrusive parenting. For example, Chua cites an instance where her daughter could not learn a song on the piano. So, Chua decided to descend upon her daughter, forcing the music and attacking her saying that her sister could play it at that age. They went for hours back and forth, fighting the whole time, until finally she was able to play the piece (Chua 17-24). In another instance, Chua called one of her girls “garbage” in an attempt to motivate her (Chua7).

            In my family, my parents utilized more authoritative style. This style consists of a blend of demands and expectations. Parents explain things rationally, but do not leave enough room for a child to make an argument. It is a rational-based approach to teaching kids to be responsible and altruistic (Marsiglia, Walczyk, Buboltz, Griffith-Ross 7). For example, when my brother was in middle school he was having trouble with times tables. So, my father coached him constantly, much like Mrs. Chua had done with her daughter on the piano. When my brother finally started succeeding my parents backed off and allowed him to grow, and develop good academic practices. If he stumbled they would help enough to get him on track again. Never did my parents force us to do an activity, or shut down our voice. They stressed communication, emotion, and independence. Now years later, my three siblings and I are all in higher education, with completely different interests. My sister Jenny is a working nurse with a job offer and generous salary. My other sister April is finishing art school, and my brother Eric is in his first year at medical school. He is also contracted with the United States Air Force. I am now a communications student, working on tv shows and also a DJ at school. All of this success came more from expectations rather than enforcement.

            Amy Chua’s argument in “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior” presents an interesting look at a particular parenting style. She says it’s important for total domination of children otherwise things will go awry. However, her argument never truly cites any sufficient evidence to support that this is the best way to raise a child. Furthermore she fails to convince the audience that a Chinese mother is better than anything else. In fact, most parents are on the same level. Through professional studies we can see that the majority of parents want the same things for their child. We also see that extreme styles of parenting, such as authoritarian, do not always work. The same success can be accomplished through trust, guidance and affection. It does not matter whether they are Black, White, Chinese, or Hispanic. Good parents are ones that show unconditional love and support for their children.

Works Cited

Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.” Online.wsj.com.

            8 January 2011. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 18 February 2011.

Julian, Teresa; Mckenry, Patrick; Mckelvey, Mary. “Cultural Variations in Parenting:             Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American             Parents.” Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies.             Vol. 43. No. 1 (1994): 30-37. January 1994. Web. 24 February 2011

Marsiglia, Cheryl; Walczyk, Jeffrey; Buboltz, Walter; Griffith-Ross, Diana. “Impact of             Parenting Styles and Locus of Control on Emerging Adults’ Psychological             Success.” Journal of Education and Human Development. Vol. 1. Issue 1             (2007): N. Pag. 2007. Web. 1 March 2011.

Documentation Quiz

1. We have been using MLA Format

2.The other half of the MLA citation system is a Works Cited page, in addition to in text citation.

3.the format is as follows:
Author. "Title of Web Page." Name of Site. Date of
     posting/last revision. Name of institution/affiliation with the site.
     web. date site was accessed.

Rebuttal Prewriting Exercise

The only way to rebut Amy Chua's article is to mostly challenge assumptions, due to her severe lack of evidence. I don't see an opportunity to counter argue simply because it would be difficult to generate a strong rebuttal. I think the best possible way to go about the response is to refute.

Some quick pieces of the article that stood out
-overall a childish, poorly structured, weak argument
-many over generalizations
-pompous and egotistical tone
-unethical to the audience she is scrutinizing

Rough Claim
Amy Chua uses Why Chinese Mothers are Superior to present an argument that lacks any sufficient convincing evidence, and supports a claim that condemns and insults Western Society.

Reflection 1.2

I'm pleased with my final paper. I think, at the very least, that I have learned what a rhetorical analysis actually is, and I think that my paper makes a good effort at trying to analyze my chosen article. As far as my writing process goes, I started with educating myself further about the idea of a rhetorical analysis, and then proceeded to get my ideas down in a first draft. After this draft I incorporated terms and cleaned up on some organization and syntax issues to make the paper flow nicely from one idea to the next. Finally, I found that by organizing my paper, I was able to further analyze quotes from the text, and actually add more material than  originally planned.

Essay 1.2: Lethal Weapons: A Rhetorical Analysis of "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws"

Mark Melchior
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Lethal Weapons:

A Rhetorical Analysis of
“Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws”

Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought, that open debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial titled, “Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws.” featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. This article was published on January 26, 2011; only 18 days after the Tucson shooting. It would seem that in light of the recent events in Arizona, Weintraut believes there is a strong occasion to speak on the larger issue of gun violence. In her article she makes use of facts, emotion, and is supported by firm logic to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of ethos, or credibility. Her use of statistics allows for the article to retain its integrity, without appearing arrogant or dogmatic. Although they are overwhelming at first, their placement makes for a logical and credible argument. For example, “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms…” (3). By referencing public institutions, rather than a questionable source, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She also oversteps assumptions that the article is not to be taken any less serious than front-page news, simply because it is an editorial. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” (3). This affirms that guns are, in fact, causing an issue in the average American’s life. Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She also supports her claim by utilizing a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text.
Weintraut employs another factor in the article, logos. Logic exists in this text more so between the lines. Logic is more than just appealing to common sense. It is her ability to make the reader recognize that a freedom in our society is pouring salt in an open wound. The salt being guns, the wound being crime. The facts discussed as part of her use of ethos only enhance this feeling. Weintraut draws readers to her side of the fence through this realization. She forces the audience to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American lifestyle. She quotes the Second Amendment at the beginning of the article, and then proceeds to make the comparison, “…the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…we have diverse military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government…Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival,”(2). She also observes that animals are no longer hunted for survival, rather that they are raised and slaughtered in a business. Her comments here are somewhat sarcastic, but powerful. She is saying that Americans no longer live in a lawless, “dead or alive” society any more. This argument contends that we are more sophisticated as a species, and more so as American citizens. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” The realization that finally stems from this logic is that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to fix the issue. The title, “Government should create Stricter Gun Laws,” acts as a call to action for the public and government to be aware of the growing violence. She then goes on to sample actual events that, in her opinion, propose a reason to put a leash on guns. In one of the final paragraphs, Weintraut also wields these historical events to play at the emotions the public suffered them. In one sentence she references the tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Tucson. All of which involved the use of firearms. These statements are an attempt to reach out to victims, and bystanders who heard or witnessed these tragedies. It is a direct strike to a person’s heart, in order to motivate her cause. Weintraut’s comments are brief, however their mention has no less effect. No one desires another catastrophe like these events, and it is incredibly frightening when such moments are brought into the spotlight. That is what makes them relevant. Weintraut’s purpose is to sell the idea that firearms have very little role in everyday life, and this part of the essay is a catalyst for support. Pathos, emotion, is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized in an argument. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important. Here, emotion is used to promote strong opposition to firearms.
Weintraut focuses on several audiences in this essay. These include the Federal Government, gun crime victims, and gun owners. It allows her to address multiple objectives based around her claim that firearms need attention. In another segment she begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut comments, “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time…21 years old…he or she can choose from an uncomfortably wide range of arms and ammunition.” (5). This cold reality insinuates that concern over gun crimes is seemingly nonexistent. The judgment almost demands that this should be more of a national interest, and it works. In her research she found that there are only four states that have made some sort of effort at restricting firearm purchases: “Only four states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia) limit their citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days.” (5). It seems at this point that Weintraut is indirectly addressing her audience. The audience, government, general public, and victims are all being told that this number is far too small. It is an indirect call to action, in order to build support for changing gun laws, as well as an analysis of society’s inaction.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut creates a very reasonable, smart, and effective argument against the Government’s lack luster efforts to halt gun crimes. She criticizes state and Federal institutions for not being more aware and concerned with the issue. At the same time she employs facts to support her claim. Also, there are quick jabs at the heart of Americans by referencing tragedies caused by firearms. Finally, she used compelling logic as a last attempt to gain support. By using a combination of these, Weintraut generates a convincing argument that opens debate for a higher cause.















Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." Ithacan 26 Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

College Freewrite

The response paper by Travis Weinger had the stronger opinion. I like how he attacked the seemingly endless amount of parents and elders that preach for youth to act more like they did. I enjoyed how Weinger associated the changes that have occurred with rapid success, rather than making them out to be college out to be a joke. Perlstein is just another example of someone who is going struggle to endure social changes, and be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I think that Perlstein's accusation that college is no longer a liberating, and eye-opening experience is completely wrong. University level education is still the most freeing experience in most young people's lives, it has simply changed since the 1960's, and that was the most important point made in Weinger's response.

Reflection 1.1

My writing process thus far in the project consisted mostly of brainstorming. I had trouble starting my paper and decided that free-writing any and all ideas that came to mind were the best option. I did a little research about rhetorical analysis and received a clear definition, which aided in writing my first draft. In addition to research, I did some mental organizing by organizing pieces of my article that were important and not so important. I think that I need to improve on some organizational issues with my paper, as well as a few grammatical errors. Another piece I can add to my work are the terms discussed in class such logos, ethos, and pathos. However, this does not mean I missed to mark on focus. I think that I focused the paper very well and have an understanding of concepts examined in class

Mark Melchior
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought that opens debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. In the article she makes use of facts and along with firm logic and is also supported by to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of statistics. Although they are overwhelming at first, their placement makes for a logical and credible argument. For example, “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms…” By referencing public institutions, rather than someone or something less official, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She attempts to do this through a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text. The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to ix the issue. The title, Government should create Stricter Gun Laws, acts as a call to action for the public and government to be aware of the growing violence. She then goes on to sample actual events that, in her opinion, propose a reason to put a leash on guns.
In one of the final paragraphs, Weintraut uses historical events to play at the anger and sorrow the public suffered over a few violent acts. In one sentence she references, “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, and most recently the Arizona shooting.” These statements are an attempt to reach out to victims, and bystanders who heard or witnessed these tragedies. It is a direct strike to a person’s heart, in order to motivate her cause. Emotion is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized to be awareness. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important.
In another segment the author begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut states, “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time…21 years old…he or she can choose from an uncomfortably wide range of arms and ammunition.” This cold reality insinuates that concern of gun crimes is not very widespread. The criticism almost demands that this should be more of a national interest, and it works. In her research she found that there are only four states that have made some sort of effort at restricting firearm purchases, “Only four states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia) limit their citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days.”
Weintraut employs another factor in the article. She forces the reader to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American living. She quotes the Second Amendment at the beginning of the article, and then proceeds to make the comparison, “…the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…we have diverse military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government…Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival.” She also observes that animals are no longer hunted for survival, rather that they are raised and slaughtered in a business. Her comments here are somewhat sarcastic, but powerful. She is saying that Americans no longer live in a lawless, “dead or alive” type society any more. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” It is now easier to understand that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut’s examination of the Governments lack luster effort to halt gun crimes. She criticizes state and Federal institutions for not being more aware and concerned with the issue. At the same time she employs facts to support her claim. Also, there are quick jabs at the heart of Americans by referencing tragedies caused by firearms. Finally, she used compelling logic as a last attempt to gain support. By using a combination of these, Weintraut creates a convincing argument that opens debate for a higher cause.



Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." Ithacan 26 Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

Rhetorical Analysis Quiz

     Textual Analysis focuses on the text itself. It is the study of an authors word choice and style. In addition to those are other writing features such as structure and voice. The Rhetorical Appeals are a part of Textual Analysis. However, Contextual Analysis focuses on where the argument sits within a much larger conversation. It places a particular point of view on the table of a much larger issue. Somewhere within a broad, far-reaching argument is an authors published point of view. This is what Contextual Analysis tries to uncover. Other parts include the five "W's" (who, what, where, when, why) and the pieces of the Rhetorical Situation.