WW1 = Water War 1

On March 21st 2005, an article named “Water Wars: Bottling up the World’s Supply of H2O” appeared in the Seattle Times. The author, Joshua Ortega, directed his main idea of the article, how the effect of bottled water on our nation and the world as a whole and the potential effects it has on the future of the earth, to the readers of the mentioned newspaper. Ortega wants us to change our viewpoint on bottled water and ultimately switch to the convenience of tap water. Ortega wants us to realize that it is our responsibility to switch to bottle water as to help the other developing countries. The switch will help the developing countries to gain a feeling of being able to depend on their selves.
With the help of many different rhetorical tools Joshua Ortega relays this message in a manner that he seems is best fit for this particular audience to make the switch from bottled water to tap water. He does this with the use of many ingenious analogies and by painting intricate pictures in your mind using imagery Ortega helps us realize that tap water really is better than bottled water.
Ortega’s use of analogies in this article plays a very important part in helping us realize the importance of switching to tap water. For example when he says, “However, bottled water is ultimately a Band-Aid solution.” (147). It is important to know the placement of this analogy, it follows a statement were it is said that many places in the world, mainly developing countries, bottled water is the only source of drinking. This is compared to where in the United States we take bottle water for advantage. Thus bottled water fixes the problem of not having water. The analogy could also mean that bottled water helps heal wounds. These wounds could be things like water that has become dirty due to the pollution or the filthy streams. This helps us realize the importance of switching to tap water by making us aware that bottled water is a need for some countries, and it is only a mere want for the citizens in the United States.
Another example of how Ortega shows the importance of switching to tap water by using analogies is when he makes this argument. “Taking away your water is the same thing as putting a gun to your head.” (150). I have never thought that taking away the most widely used product that quenches your thirst would be the same as putting a gun to your head. When someone is threatened by a gun being pointed at their head they are more likely to do what they are being commanded to do. This is why Ortega uses this analogy. When people take away our water until we do what they want us to do we will only last for a day, therefore we will do it as fast as we can. Making us away of the importance that water has on our lives this analogy lets the readers of the article know that they need to take action against the “Water Wars” or they will eventually be placed in some very bad predicaments. According to Ortega these predicaments can include but not limited to the death of individuals that are forced to go without water.
The final tool that does a great deal of encouraging us as readers to switch to using tap water is Ortega’s ability to create detailed pictures in our brains with the use of imagery. The imagery that jumped out at me the most is when he states, “Clean, unpolluted, affordable water. There is nothing more important in the world—but it’s in serious danger” (146). This draws some very detailed pictures into the mind of the readers. This statement is very strategically placed in the article. This is the first thing that the readers read, thus they are grabbed from the very beginning begging for more. This is a very bold move that Ortega, from the start the readers have high expectations for Ortega to fulfill. He fulfills this by continuing painting very thorough images throughout the remainder of the article.
Another picture painted by Ortega is the one where he mentions the following statistic, “The Container Recycling Institute reported that 14 billion water bottles were sold in the United States in 2002, yet only 10 percent of these bottles were recycled—90 percent ended up in the trash.” (147). A picture of dumps and trash cans full of bottled water is instantly plastered in the reader’s mind, while the orange containers used for recycling are portrayed on the sidewalks and in the garages being full of something other than bottles, but air itself.
Ortega’s “Water Wars: Bottling up the World’s Supply of H2O” uses very clear rhetorical tools to portray a message to readers that we need to change the way we think about bottled water. He does this with the use of many ingenious analogies and by painting intricate pictures in your mind using imagery Ortega helps us realize that tap water really is better than bottled water. In conclusion Ortega states, “And above all else, remember that it’s not too late. Clean, affordable water is still a reality in this country. It is our patriotic duty as Americans to ensure that it stays that way” (150).

The Big Bad Wolf

For some reason my computer was having difficulties and would not let me put my works cited, so I went through and took them out. I apologize that they do not appear, I have them in the hard copy of my rough draft. Also, sorry about all the grammar mistakes, I realize that this is something I need to work on before I turn in my final draft. Thanks! :)

Barbara Ehrenreich, the writer of "Wal-Martian Invasion", uses her article to express how she believes Wal-Mart exhibits a great deal of inequality to their workers. When researching this article, I found that Ms. Ehrenreich is very interested in socio- economic differences, and puts forth a great effort to help those that suffer from inequality throughout America. I also found that she uses this as a career to uphold her comfortable lifestyle. To write this particular article, Barbara Ehrenreich took three weeks and worked as a Wal-Mart employee to see how a person living on Wal-Mart’s wages survives. Due to her interest in socio-economic differences, this article could be considered biased because of the possibility that Ms. Ehrenreich went to work at Wal-Mart in attempts to find something wrong, and for information to write her book. She first published her article in, “The Baltimore Sun,” in which many middle class and Wal-Mart shoppers will receive and view this particular article. Since many of the Baltimore residents use Wal-Mart as their source of groceries, and other home items, this article appeals to them and may cause them to think that Wal-Mart is the “big bad wolf”. Although this article may have been written in attempts to help Wal-Mart employees, it may in fact be more of a hurt than a help to them.
Throughout the article, the author uses words such as Wal-Martian. Although this word may provide comic relief, it is both degrading and hurtful to Wal-Mart. Through this use of diction, the author implies that Wal-Mart is foreign or non-human and is therefore demeaning to employees. This is appealing to a reader because it causes them to believe that Wal-Mart employees are not treated like humans, but rather like an alien or some non-earthly thing. The author fails to realize that through her word choice she is also hurting the employees of Wal-Mart because she tags them to be “rare” or different from the rest of us. Through her diction, it is obvious that the author (perhaps subconsciously) has exhibited an act of inequality herself.
At one point in the article the author describes a Wal-Mart employee as, “ A creature afflicted with the appetite of a starved hyena that does not have time for the niceties.” (Ehrenreich130) This metaphor causes a reader to feel a great deal of pathos for a Wal-Mart employee considering that they are treated like a rodent or animal. This quote is used in context with the story of a female Wal-Mart employee that cannot afford to buy a seven dollar red polo shirt. The author fails to question other reasons as to why this woman may not be able to afford a polo shirt, but rather jumps right to the fact that it is because Wal-Mart treats their workers like animals. She appeals to a reader’s pathos by causing you to feel sympathy for this woman cannot afford a seven dollar red polo shirt, due to her wage of “$7 an hour.” (reference to article) However, I find that her argument is a fallacy. The Wal-Mart webpage states that the average pay for a Wal-Mart employee is $10.83 per hour, and is therefore more than the $7 that Ehrenreich quoted. (Wal-Mart)
Ehrenreich uses a great deal of logos throughout her article as well. She expresses that in the year 2000, Wal-mart was bigger than General Motors, and richer than Switzerland. She also expresses that they churn through almost 600,000 employees a year. (Ehrenreich, 129) Through these statistics the author is trying to appeal to the reader that Wal-Mart is taking over the world and in a way has become out of control. She quotes these facts knowing that there are over 57 Wal-Mart’s in Maryland alone. (Wal-Mart Web page) This therefore will appeal to someone who lives in Baltimore because they will consider how many Wal-Mart’s there are around them and associate that to the large-scale numbers that she is presenting. She fails to realize that these statistics also show Wal-Mart has become one of the biggest economic helps. When a Wal-Mart is placed in a town it provides thousands of jobs for residents and causes the wealth of the town to soar. In Maryland over 17,963 people are employed, and Wal-Mart has paid over eighteen million dollars in taxes to the state of Maryland. (Wal-Mart web page) Wal-Mart is also known for their generous donations and kindness to other people. In 2007, Wal-Mart and Sam’s Cub gave $10.997,401.000 to charities and communities in the state of Maryland and raised $12,198,839.000 to contribute to clubs and other organizations throughout the state of Maryland. (Wal-Mart Website) Overall, Wal-Mart is a great help to the entire community and the state. It can then be said that perhaps Wal-Mart is not taking over the world, but supporting the world. Although, through Ehrenreich’s logos, you would assume that Wal-Mart is selfish and is in fact “taking over the world.”
At one point the author refers to Wal-Mart as, “the worlds largest sweatshop.” This is a very large overstatement and shows just how incorrect she is about Wal-Mart employees. A sweatshop is a place in which workers are paid low wages and work in unhealthy conditions. (Macmillan/Macgraw, 2006) This statement is used as a means to cause the reader to once again believe that Wal-Mart is treating their employees horribly by not paying them enough, and causing them to work in unhealthy conditions, for long hours. Although Wal-Mart offers some of the lowest wages in the market, they are not the lowest and provide jobs for many who otherwise may not be able to attain a job. Many times those who greet you at the doors of Wal-Mart are the elderly, or handicapped who may not be able to find a job elsewhere. Wal-Mart provides careers for all and does its best not to discriminate against those who may not be as fit or able to participate in the work. Overall, to call Wal-Mart a sweatshop is outrageous, and gives readers the false impression that they provide their employees with unbelievably low wages, and cause them to work in an unclean or dangerous environment.
There is a great amount of irony used periodically throughout this article, at one part she states, “ Earth to Wal-Mars, or wherever you come from: Live with us or go back to the mothership.” When the author uses this expression she doesn’t mean that Wal-Mart should literally, “go back to the mothership,” but rather that Wal-Mart needs to learn to set better guidelines for their employees so that they can enjoy a better quality of life. This appeals to the audience because it provides them with a statement that will help them to remember the ideas mentioned throughout the article and cause them to think back and associate future ideas with this article. The author also uses irony when she says talks about Jay Nordlinger and how although he believes that Wal-Mart is a liberal intelligentsia that he favors the expensive store Williams Sonoma. Barbara Ehrenreich included this ironic statement as a comic moment, but also to show the reader that although this man supports Wal-Mart he personally shops at a much higher faluting store and would therefore know nothing about shopping at Wal-Mart. She uses these appeals to show the reader the truthfulness of the story and to help them realize that there is more than meets the eye.
Through the use of Rhetoric in her article, Barbara Ehrenreich, does a great job expressing her opinion to the audience on how Wal-Mart exhibits inequality to their employees, however her opinion is biased. Due to the fact that Ms. Ehrenreich is a scholar of socio-economic differences, it is possible that she went to work at Wal-Mart in an effort to find fault and inequality. Overall, although Ms. Ehrenreich believes she is helping Wal-Mart employees by sharing their story, she may in fact be hurting them by her degrading approach and discouraging the people of Baltimore from shopping there. Ms. Ehrenreich used rhetorical tools to express and appeal her opinion to the audience, but failed to consider the counter arguments and therefore discourages a person from seeing the big picture but rather just her own thoughts. It is my hope that readers will be able to realize that there is more than one side to this argument and that more research should be done on this subject before a side is chosen.

Fear the Future

Joshua Ortega strives to open the eyes of his blind audience to the dangers of bottled water and the future problems the water industry has in store. Ortega, writer of The Seattle Times, uses literary devices and rhetorical tools in his article, “Water Wars: Bottling Up the World’s Supply of H2O,” to persuade his readers to boycott bottled water and drink tap water. Joshua Ortega focuses on the past by using strong diction, allusions, and other tools to make us worry about the future and take action. This builds his credibility and appeal to both pathos and logos while convincing his readers to be aware of the contaminated bottled water and the privatization of water industries, which is the “most important issue we will face in our lifetime.”
Joshua Ortega begins his article with astonishing facts that cause his readers to be aware of the water problems and fear what could result from those problems in the future. He states, “Out of 103 brands of bottled water, one-third contained traces of arsenic and E. coli. This means that out of a sample of 1,000 bottles sold in the U.S., at least 300 would have some level of chemical contamination.” Ortega has presented the facts of bottled water, not just his opinion, which allow the audience to trust his stance. The appeal to the logistics by using statistics emotionally affects the reader. Because water is something we all consume and have to consume to live, hearing that at least 300 out of 1,000 bottles of water have some level of chemical contamination causes the reader to rethink choosing bottled water over tap water. Ortega’s use of harsh statistics was smart because the audience cannot argue against them, but rather dwell on them as the facts linger in their minds. This strategic way of starting his article built Ortega’s credibility, left the readers rethinking their choice of drinking bottled water, and appealed to logos.
Joshua Ortega furthers his emotional appeal by using overstatements which cause the audience to worry about the water issue. First, Ortega quotes the vice president of World Bank, “The wars of the next century will be about water." It is true that water will be battle in the future but an economical one rather than a physical one. This causes the audience to fear what could come from the water problems and want to take action to avoid war, especially because the United States has been in a war with the Middle East for years. Ortega also emotionally captures the audience by stating, “Taking away your water is the same thing as putting a gun to your head.” He is relating this to having a war over water. This causes strong emotions to be felt by the audience. “Putting a gun to your head” sends negative feelings to the audience and puts the issue of war breaking out over water on a more important level. It causes the reader to become emotionally attached to the issue and to consider what the outcomes will be if they do not take action. Joshua Ortega’s use of overstatements pushes and persuades his audience to take action against the environmentally unfriendly and contaminated bottled water.
Joshua Ortega also uses allusions to build his credibility and cause fearful feelings of the past to be revisited by the audience. By referring to major events that have happened in the past, Ortega shows that he has done his research and knows what he is talking about. This allows the reader to rely on his facts and trust his opinions. Ortega alludes to an event in 1998 where the water supply of Sydney, Australia was contaminated with cryptosordium and giardia and the public was not informed when the parasites were first discovered. By using an event that has already taken place, the issue becomes a reality to the audience. The reader is able to see that real problems have occurred in the water industry and that the public has been affected by this. Ortega also brings up Iraq when stating, “So much fuss was made about France’s opposition to the war in Iraq, yet there was little or no public outcry over the selling of U.S. water companies to foreign interest.” Ortega puts the water crisis on the same level as the war in Iraq. By doing this the audience become emotionally attached. Most U.S. citizens do not want to be in war and have been drastically affected by the war in Iraq. When the audience reads this, they fear what could come in the future with the consumption of bottled water and the privatization of water industries. Lastly, Ortega alludes to Enron so that he can relate the water issue to something his audience is familiar with. He explains, “An energy crisis was bad enough--just imagine if the Enron scenario happened with water.” No one wants to go through another Enron scenario or have that scare again. By reminding the audience of that situation and paralleling it with the water scenario, the audience again fears the consequences of not taking action. The use of allusions in Ortega’s article relates the future water problems with major events that have occurred in the past. This emotionally attaches the audience to the problem and gives them an idea of possible outcomes of the water crisis.
Joshua Ortega captures his readers’ attention through his tone and diction and persuades them to take action. Ortega uses a stern tone and fear to scare his readers into taking the water issue seriously. Fear raises an emotionally that causes people to either restrain from action or act to prevent consequences. Ortega shows his stern, straightforward tone by claiming, “Water corporations exist to make profits—not to preserve water’s quality or affordability.” He says things point blank, just how he sees them. This tone provides the reader with trust in the author that they are not being manipulated. This technique is beneficial for Ortega and allows him to persuade the audience and get them emotionally involved. The author also uses strong diction that emotionally ties his readers to the topic. For example, he states, “Indeed, it is a strange day when the same corporation that makes bombs and missiles also owns your water, an “industry” that putatively will be the major focus of this century’s wars.” The emotions of the audience are being affected by the word choices. Bombs and missiles send out negative vibes that cause the reader to have a negative feeling towards the water companies. He could have replaced the words bombs and missiles with defense mechanisms that protect our country. That would have caused the reader to view these companies in a more heroic way rather than viewing them as cruel, war instigating companies. People fear weapons such as bombs and missiles. Therefore, Ortega does a good job in placing fear towards the companies that own our water in his audience.
Getting an audience emotionally attached and involved in your writing is one of the most effective ways to persuade them. In the article, “Water Wars: Bottling Up the World’s Supply of H2O,” writer Joshua Ortega powerfully appeals to pathos and successfully gets his readers to listen to and side with his opinion. Ortega’s use of literary tools such as overstatements and allusions builds his credibility, which allows his readers to trust his writing. The author’s diction and tone furthers the audiences trust in him and opens the audiences’ eyes to a new stance on bottled water. Ortega persuades his readers to go out and take action by placing fear of future problems in their minds.

Pathetic Pathetic Attempt

AIDS is serious business. There’s no question about that. It is an epidemic that has been rapidly growing in every country of the world. Some nations, especially developing ones, have taken harder hits than others. Melinda French Gates, wife of Bill Gates, in April 2004 published an article in The Seattle Times entitled “AIDS and India.” In her article, Gates ineffectively attempts to persuade financially stable countries, agencies and individuals to donate to the fight against AIDS by using the wrong tone, poor word choice and lack of imagery.

Gates’ argument and cause are terrific. AIDS is a very sensitive topic and has a lot of emotion attached to it. One would assume that an effective way to move people to act on such a cause would be to appeal to their emotions. This is why her rhetoric didn’t quite cut it. She chose to use a very neutral, somewhat dry tone. She lacks passion and gusto. She opens up the article describing how fast India is developing and how it is “on the brink of an AIDS catastrophe that could undermine the country’s potential for progress.” After this sentence, you start to get somewhat pumped until you read a little while later a sentence like this: “But I am hopeful that the nation can avoid disaster.” Well you know what? So is everyone else. Tell us something we don’t know. The word “hopeful” seems to me not only neutral, but very weak. All of us are hopeful, but we want to be more than that.

Admittedly, in the end of the article, she seems to have received a shot of fervor in her tone with sentences like “India urgently needs more clinics, more condoms, more testing, more information and more treatment…” and “…children will thrive, economies will boom, democracies will flourish and women like Gita really shall overcome.” But where was all that jazz in the rest of the article? Gates should have peppered the entire paper with enthusiastic appeals to build up emotion throughout the course of the reading, then capping it off with a specific and action inspiring conclusion. But instead, we are left to only dream of such an article. To handicap her grand finale even further, she throws a wrench into her own rhetorical gears. She begins to describe the foundation that she and her husband started, but by so doing she completely shifts the focus of the paper, talking of other diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria that can be prevented by vaccines. She also switches audiences. The article was originally written to the readers of The Seattle Times, but then says, “That is why it is so important that nations with emerging epidemics, like India, act now.” This takes the focus off of her original argument and audience in a very inopportune place in the article: preceding the conclusion. Even though the concluding paragraphs are very well written and use good diction, this is overpowered by this last minute switch of gears.

Basically all of Gates’ insufficiencies link back to one main problem: a lack of appealing to emotion. The second way that she shoots herself in the foot is by poor word choice. Over and over she used the title “sex worker” to describe an individual who sells their body to be used for the sexual pleasures of another person. There are many other words and techniques that can be used in place of the term “sex worker” that would definitely jerk at your emotions a little more. Not only that, but she didn’t even bother to mix it up a little bit. She uses the same redundancy with terms such as “empower women,” “mobile populations,” “truck drivers,” “stigma,” and so forth. All of these are phrases that were used on numerous occasions, but she never strayed from the original terminology. Would it have been so hard to go to the dollar store and buy a thesaurus? In order to get the reader excited, one must first keep his attention. And in order to keep his attention, one must vary the language, at least a little bit.

The title is a very important part of catching the reader’s eye and eventually winning their devotion. Gates’ title “AIDS and India” pretty much sums up her apathetic voice which later becomes evident if you bother to read further. It lacks position. It lacks zeal. And most of all it lacks that darn appeal to emotion that we keep talking about.

The final pitfall to the effectiveness of Mrs. Gates’ article is a lack of imagery. The author has been out in the field of research. She knows her stuff. She is trusted by her readers and has a certain amount of credibility already. She has had many experiences that have helped her to develop her argument. But she proves herself unavailing in depicting these events to the reader in such a way as to motivate him to a course of action. For example, she describes an occurrence that took place while she was investigating a district in Calcutta, India that was heavily populated with prostitutes: “I was particularly moved when, during my visit, several sex workers spontaneously started singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’ As I listened to their Bengali-accented English, it became clear that the familiar lyrics were not just a dream for them.” Now you may be thinking to yourself, “That seems like it was off to a good start.” Yes she was off to a good start, but she seems to cut herself off abruptly. The following sentence reads, “By taking an active role in educating other sex workers and distributing condoms, these women are playing a vital role in making prevention work.” Talk about a cliff hanger. She says she was moved, but fails to move the rest of us. If she had put us in the very situation she was in, then maybe we could’ve felt what she felt. What are some of the words to the song? What was the setting? How were they dressed? With what emotion were they singing? All of these things would have helped her audience immensely to delve right into the picture. But instead we are left in the dark.

Another example of this inadequacy to bring the reader onto the stage is found when she states a potentially frightening fact. Her words are, “I was told by the leader of a support group for HIV-positive people that the stigma of AIDS — and the inferior status of women — is so strong that a woman whose husband dies of AIDS is often blamed for his death, and thrown out of the home with her children.” This is a horrific idea. But the way she phrases it makes it so much weaker than it has the potential to be. First of all, she tells it as second-hand information. Secondly, she uses no imagery whatsoever. Just imagine if she had described a situation, factual or not, where this had actually happened. Wouldn’t you just be up and out of your seat heading for the torch and pitchfork? It is imagery that really stirs up feelings and gets people up off their rear ends and out the door on a now self-motivated mission to change the world for the better. And it is a lack of imagery that is preventing Gates’ article from effectively convincing her audience to actually do what she is asking of them.

Pathetic appeals, especially when the issue is one of such great gravity as AIDS is, are of great importance. Emotion is what really persuades people to act. Melinda Gates, however, failed to do so because of an indifferent tone, bad choice of words, and an ignorance of the power of imagery. Although the author starts off with a certain amount of credibility due to her status and the status of her husband, her rhetorical faux pas rendered her persuasiveness feeble. And thus we see that the knowledge of the author is not the only thing that plays a role in the conversion of readers to a cause, noble as it may be.

Globalization and the US Economy

On April 29, 2004 Robert T. Parry spoke with Investment Professionals in Honolulu to give his opinion as a monetary policymaker on globalization and free trade and the effect that it has on the U.S. economy. These remarks were later published as an Economic Letter from the Federal Reserve of San Francisco in May of that year. While addressing these persons, Parry argues through examples and statistics that globalization can in fact help to strengthen the economy rather than weaken it. Parry relies heavily on his experience in economics and international banking to demonstrate the validity of his argument for globalization and free trade. Based on his experience and knowledge, Parry presents a convincing argument for globalization and the positive effects that it can have within the U.S. economy.
Mr. Parry was president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and also served on the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System, both of which help to make him extremely qualified to present this argument. The tone of the article is greatly affected by his past experiences and helps to give an authoritatively convincing argument to the ongoing debate of globalization and its effect on the economy. He clearly states at the beginning of his presentation that his main concern is for the state of the economy and then begins discussing this. The tone throughout the article remains very professional and confident but without being arrogant or patronizing. His argument is presented in a very well structured and organized form and it is assumed his audience has somewhat of an understanding of the subject matter; given that it was prepared for a group of investment professionals.
While Parry’s extensive experience gives him the knowledge and understanding needed to convincingly present his views, he acknowledges that things are not perfect. This appeal to ethos makes Parry come across as a trustworthy source of information on the subject. When acknowledging the effects of globalization on U.S. workers and the policies in place he states, “I realize there’s some debate about how effective the programs are, but the concepts they’re built on are, to my mind, right on target—giving workers a safety net and giving workers the training and tools to qualify for the jobs being created in the U.S.” By recognizing these shortcomings and explaining why he feels they are not a reason to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, Parry becomes a figure that perceives both the good with the bad and seeks out that which he believes is best for the people while maintaining the trust of his audience.
While not all effects of globalization are desirable, it is understood that economic activity flows in both directions as a result of globalization and free market strategies when applied correctly and appropriately. By recognizing and acknowledging this, he shows that he is not only concerned with how the United States fares, but that he has analyzed it on a larger scale and considered the rest of the world. This is something that not many Americans do. Many times we think only of ourselves but the fact that Parry recognized the positive effect that these strategies can have internationally demonstrate his good will and intentions in presenting his ideas so that all might benefit from what he views as being a source for good and progression to the world. Given that the title of the article states that the focus is whether globalization will help or hurt the United States economy, it was rather unexpected for him to speak of others as benefitting as a result to this.
The statements aforementioned are not just simply the ideas and opinions of Mr. Parry, but the result of much research and personal insight. Throughout the article he has included examples and statistics to illustrate the concept or idea that is being explained. This makes things become very clear for the audience. It is true that some statistics can be misleading, but the ones that Parry chose to include are neither superfluous nor exorbitant. They serve their desired purpose and appeal to logos with real world examples and applications of what is being explained. In one example he states that the US bought $77 billion worth of services from foreigners but also sold $130 billion worth of products and services in foreign markets; a number which is far greater. These statistics become very important to the article because much of what is written reflects the research and first-hand experience that Parry has done and had. The article becomes less opinionated and more informative due to these examples included in the article.
Having all the experience and numbers to back up what is said is fantastic but the nature of economics and international trade is rather complex. Parry employs the use of metaphor to help make it more understandable and clearer to the audience. In one example he likens the economy and well being of a country to that of a family; a family cannot produce everything necessary for its survival and also offers services and or goods to other families in order to meet their own needs. How a family lives and performs the functions needed to survive is something that everyone can relate to and understand what his point is. While this use of metaphor might appear to be something unnecessary because the audience has experience and understanding prior to hearing Mr. Parry, his place within the economic community allows him to make such a comment without it being seen as overly simple. While it may not have been as useful to the audience in that moment, his use of metaphor allows the reader now to have a better understanding of the subject matter.
There are many that may agree with Parry, and there are also many that may disagree with him. However, he has presented a convincing argument for globalization and examined the effects that it can have in our lives. His past experience greatly increases his credibility and chances of actually affecting his audience. Were Parry to be someone with little or no experience in the economic world, it would become increasingly difficult to trust in what is said. By employing these rhetorical tools skillfully, the effect of globalization and free trade on the United States economy has become less a mystery and more understandable so that others can decide for themselves whether or not they agree with it.

A Twist on being Feminist

In our history women have always been the prominent nurturers and care givers for children. Women are able to have enormous amounts of compassion towards others. This can be greatly seen in times of natural disasters when women help give food and clothing to those in need. Thinking back to childhood it is apparent that children who are hurt or sick will most likely go to their mothers for comfort. While men can also be great comforters, there is something in women’s nature that allows them to excel when it comes to nurturing. Melinda Gates, wife of Bill Gates and co-founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, realizes the incredible ability of women to give love and compassion to others. She also realizes that AIDS is becoming increasingly more widespread and prominent in our culture today; especially in India. Her article “AIDS and India” talks about the devastating effect AIDS will have and is already having on this country. She vividly describes the situation and how it can be changed. Gates uses many rhetorical devices to help gain the acceptance of the audience. She wants others to support her in her cause to educate those in India so that AIDS does not continue to spread all over the country. Melinda Gates directs her argument specifically toward women by using information most important and prominent to females to better the chances of making a difference.

In her article, Melinda Gates uses the word “women” twelve times; she never uses the word “men”. Gates draws upon past experiences women have had to get an emotional appeal. According to Gates one of the three most import priorities for India is “the need to empower women” (Gates 187). This can really strike a nerve when the Women’s Rights Movement is brought up. Many of the women in our country understand what it is like to feel suppressed and looked over. This statement draws on the same emotions that those advocating women’s suffrage also relied on. Women do not want to ever feel like second-class citizens; nor do women want other females to feel that way.

By using the story of an actual prostitute in India, Gates is appealing to women’s very nature, that of compassion. Melinda Gates comments that she will “never forget a sex worker named Gita” (Gates 188). According to Gates this woman really showed her the importance of women’s empowerment. This story has a similar effect as the horrific story of everything Anne Frank encountered in the concentration camps during the holocaust. What do stories like these create in women? Genuine compassion. By using Gita as a literal example Gates is offering a way for women to be able to feel more sympathy for those affected by AIDS. This story puts a name and a face to the problems in India with AIDS. Women feel more compassion for someone they feel they know. The world has learned that when women really care about something there will be changes made.

Every woman enjoys a good story. At family and friend get-togethers women can be seen huddled in groups talking about their lives and learning from each other. Who better to appreciate a personal experience than women? Gates is sure to make the point several times over that she personally went to India and saw the sex workers and the truck drivers. On her “trip to Calcutta” she learned many different aspects of the situation there that she is so very willing to share with readers (Gates 187). Once women hear that this is a personal account of the problems in India, their ears and eyes perk up a bit more and then pay more attention. Women are more apt to believe someone who has witnessed all of these things in India than someone who simply read about it somewhere. By sharing her personal experiences in India Gates builds her credibility. She is able to further convince women of the importance of helping stop AIDS in India because she gives specific examples of how small changes can make a great difference.

Relying on emotional appeal alone would not create a wise argument. Gates relies on other appeals to try to convince women to support her cause. Readers are shocked when they read that “70 percent of Indian women have never even heard of AIDS” (emphasis added) (Gates 188). This not only causes an emotional response in women; it also causes a logical response. A percentage that large is a very effective way to convince women that there is definitely a problem in India. This statistic puts the situation in India into perspective for those who Melinda Gates is targeting. This logical appeal really inspires women to try to make a difference because they have a way to measure the potential success in India. Gates uses repetition and this shock effect as she introduces her next point that Gita and other sex workers have increased “condom use from near zero to 70 percent” (Gates 188). By using this percentage number twice within two sentences readers really get the message that women in the United States and in India can make a huge difference in the AIDS battle.

Only women have the ability to carry and bear children into this world. This ability gives women a deep love for and connection with children. Gates uses this love and compassion toward children to her advantage in her article. In this article about AIDS and how to stop it in India, Gates randomly begins talking about all the poor children all around the world. This paragraph in her paper talks little about AIDS and how to prevent it. Gates instead draws on the compassion of women by painting a picture of all the children who have diseases which could be “prevented with low-cost interventions” (Gates 189). Even though this paragraph has little to do with AIDS, it still has a large effect on women who read it. Based upon the knowledge people have about these different diseases, they are able to create vivid images of these poor, sick children. Intense emotions come up and are connected with the entire article even though they were in a direct response to a side note in the paper. With an emotional connection that strong women are more apt to be willing to make a difference.

At the very end of her article Gates relies on the audience’s sense of responsibility to make her point. According to her every single person can make a difference. Before times of public education, women were responsible for educating their children. Also, women are the primary ones who cook a meal for a family in need or perform another simple service. Gates uses specific examples of how to help out and says that someone can “educate your friends and family” and “volunteer” (Gates 190). These suggestions are specifically focused on women and their responsibilities as mothers and friends.

Gates’ final message is that with help, “women…really shall overcome” (Gates 190). This is a strong appeal to women’s emotions. Compassion drives women to want to help improve the world and the lives of those in it. Leaving the readers with this final message invokes a spirit of hope and responsibility. This is a call to action for all the women in the Seattle area who were able to read this article. Women who read this article will feel hopeful and inspired that if they do their part, great changes can occur in India and the world.

Gates successfully directs her article toward women with enough emotional appeals to draw them into her cause. Any woman who does not read this article critically can be sure that she will begin to feel compassion for the people in India. She will want to make a difference; potentially by donating money to the foundation Melinda and Bill Gates have set up. Dedicated and determined women can make very drastic changes in their world and Gates really tried to appeal to women as much as possible because she knows this. Women are driven by their emotions much more than men are; this article is great proof of that.

Melting Pot of America

If a person were asked to describe the population of the United States of America, a possible description would include the diversity of races and cultures throughout the nation. They have made up the population of this country for centuries. In “Lecture on International Flows of Humanity” by Kofi Annan, he presents to an audience of students at Columbia University, that immigration has actually helped the United States’ economy. There have been many lectures, speeches, and other forms of media that have argued the different viewpoints of this controversial issue. However, Kofi Annan uses different rhetoric tools in order to encourage the audience to believe as he believes. He is well-known as a Ghanaian diplomat and also served as a United Nations’ Secretary General. The incredible knowledge and experience that he has, can relate to the students at the University level His use of allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions become extremely powerful with the insight he gives combined with the life that he has lived.
Allusions that relate to the audience’s personal level create an appeal that will influence their perception on the message; especially when the allusion can directly apply to each individual. Kofi Annan uses an allusion at the beginning of his lecture in order to capture the audience’s attention and remind them of earlier times in the United States. He quotes Emma Lazarus’s famous words that are written on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Lazarus said, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” which welcomes all that come into the United States. When Annan uses this quote, the reader can easily ponder when immigration brought many people into New York and when so many were seeking to come to this country. The allusion becomes especially intriguing when the reader realizes that the author of this lecture was not born in the United States, yet he realizes the great impact that immigration had on the nation. Although Annan does not have ancestors that experienced this and he cannot personally relate to this allusion, it becomes more powerful because he observed the benefits of immigration through an outsider’s viewpoint. This quote puts a positive perspective on the idea of immigration. Many people that live in the United States today have ancestors that immigrated from a different country. When the author uses this allusion, the reader will have a more positive outlook on immigration because it might be how they came to live in this country.
Kofi Annan also compares the result of immigration in New York to a brilliant success story that applies to the University students and the time of life at which they are at. College is generally a struggle for most students, and the idea of a brilliant success story will be one that they will be able to personally relate to themselves. The use of the metaphor comparing New York to a successful story is an image that even a general student audience can understand and appreciate. Many people enjoy reading a book that has a happy ending. They can relax when the characters find a solution to their problems or realize their mistakes. The metaphor of a brilliant success story will enable the reader to understand that immigration is not only a good thing for the United States, but that it will give the country success. Writing about this issue in a positive manner will persuade the reader to think that immigration is a good thing for the United States and that it will affect the economy in a positive way. If students are graduating, they will be very concerned with the economy and their personal job prospects. They will want the economy to be as good as possible, and will encourage those things that will enable that to come true. Happy endings give the reader a sense that everything will be alright and that all is well in the world. Annan tries to convey that same feeling to the students he is sharing his beliefs with. The metaphor that he uses definitely gives the reader that peaceful feeling that maybe immigration is good for the United States after all.
Encouraging the reader to think about the issue is also an important part of appealing to the audience that the problem is presented to. Throughout this lecture, Annan attempts to get the audience to think using rhetorical questions. His audience is University students and by this point in their lives, they have been taught to think for themselves and the different possibilities about each issue. Annan however uses certain rhetorical questions in order to lead into his argument. He asks questions that the reader themselves might ask. These questions include: “Can we absorb large numbers of new people? Will they take our jobs or absorb our social services?” These are both valid reasons as to why immigration may not be the best for the United States. However, Annan then goes on to answer those questions that he put into the reader’s mind. He uses those counterarguments to strengthen his ideas that immigration is in fact a positive issue for the country. Later in the article, the author talks about what the Commission could think about, for the issue of immigration between countries. He lists a series of questions that surely plague at least one person’s mind. With this tool, thoughts are provoked and the audience can begin to form their own ideas concerning immigration. The questions are written in a way though, that would encourage the audience to think the way that the author wants. The use of particular tools throughout “Lecture on International Flows of Humanity” help Kofi Annan convince the audience that immigration does not hurt the economy, but that it indeed helps the economy in many ways. His tremendous background and experiences combined with the use of powerful allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions allow the audience of university students to immerse themselves in the author’s way of thinking. Although it is not very direct in the way that the author attempts to get the audience to believe a particular way, it works because the tools he uses cause the reader to stop and think about the issues that the author brings up. The most powerful portion of the article is at the conclusion of the lecture when Annan refers back to the allusion at the beginning. When he does this he refers the audience back to their roots and where they really came from. Many that are reading or listening to this lecture will appreciate their family and where their family is from. The concluding sentence, “Send these the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door,” reminds the audience of the principle upon which this country was founded. The original pilgrims came to this country seeking religious freedoms, and they found it in America. With the tools that Kofi Annan uses, he reminds the audience that they should not forget about those who founded the country. The metaphors and rhetorical questions also will allow them to ponder how they feel but their feelings are guided by these particular tools. Throughout the lecture, Kofi Annan captivates the audience’s interest using tools that help them relate to the words that are being shared. Through these techniques, the author has portrayed his ideas in a way that the reader can understand and believe.

Bottled Up Fear

Bottled Up Fear

Who knew a bottle of water could be so dangerous? Believe it or not, the neurotoxins, carcinogens, and cancer causing benzene found in bottle water come free; you don’t even have to pay for them. According to Joshua Ortega, Americans need to fear bottled water and oppose privatizing the water industry at all costs. After all, it is our patriotic duty. Ortega uses heavy doses of fear and occasional over-exaggerations to impose his view upon the readers, hoping to worry them into taking his side. Using the fear aspect of pathos and the factual side of logos, Ortega attempts to sway his readers into shunning bottled water and taking active measures to prevent the privatization of the water industry.
Joshua Ortega is maybe best well known for his work on comic books such as Star Wars, Batman, and Spider-Man. He currently writes for the Seattle Times and his topics usually focus around emerging technology. Seattle is a mainly a liberal state whose citizens aren’t too keen on change. A majority of the population, 62% to be exact, is between the ages of 20-54 and about 70% is Caucasian. Primarily, those reading Ortega’s editorial will be working, white, and liberal. The tools and strategies of rhetoric he uses are all centered around this audience as he attempts to persuade them to take an active part in preventing the water industry from becoming privatized.
From the very beginning of his article, it is easy to recognize Ortega’s desire to appeal to pathos and incorporate fear into his argument. The opening statement, referring to “clean, unpolluted, affordable water”, states that, “there is nothing more important in the world – but it’s in serious danger.” (146) The word choice of “serious danger” subconsciously implies many things in a readers mind. When talking about water, these could be things anywhere from scarcity to intense pollution in our water systems. No matter the implications, what matters is that the reader is instantly worried about having adequate water that is “clean, unpolluted, and affordable”.
An important component of Ortega is his fear causing diction. His careful choice of words with negative connotations strikes fear in his readers. He carefully chooses words that have a negative spin. Whether we like it or not, subconsciously some words just make us worried and paranoid. Just a few lines later after his opening, Ortega claims that in a 1999 study, “sampled bottled waters contained know neurotoxins and carcinogens such as styrene, toluene and xylene.” (146) Now, I for one have no idea what those chemicals look, smell, or taste like. However, when the words “neurotoxins and carcinogens” are used as adjectives, innocent words such as “styrene” and “toluene” automatically transform into something harmful and deadly. These words automatically strike fear and cause alarms to off in the reader’s mind, suddenly making something as plain and simple as bottled water look harmful. Another example of this careful word choice can be found in this statement describing benzene: “[It] has caused cancer in lab animals.” Again, fear enters the reader’s mind when they read the word cancer and we see bottled water in another negative light. Ortega is careful to include these damaging descriptions to make sure it is clear to the reader these things must be avoided. No matter the subject, careful diction can twist a perfectly natural, harmless interpretation into something much less desirable, causing the audience to drift towards Ortega’s side.
After appealing to pathos and causing the readers to feel fear, Ortega proceeds to use the factual aspect of logos to solidify his argument. His argument now shifts towards water industry privatization and he begins by noting that the major disadvantage of this is the lack of accessibility the public will have to previously available records. Obviously this will cause the public to lose knowledge about what is going on behind the scenes. This lack of knowledge will lead to an inability to raise concerns or complaints about the water we as consumers are drinking. In addition to using the lack of knowledge argument, Ortega begins to use drastic examples from major countries in order to sway his audience. For example, Ortega references France’s situation after privatizing the water industry. He claims that “when the French privatized their water services, customer rates went up 150%” (148). This was a smart choice of supporting evidence from Ortega because so much of American society is centered around money. Anything involving more costs for American citizens will be frowned upon. Ortega uses another big name when he cites the situation in Great Britain. Water corporations in this country were accused of 128 infractions over an eight year period (148). Although it would be nice to know what the specific details of some of these infractions were, it does raise the question of how much these corporations get away with when so many problems are caught. It isn’t clear if Ortega was using privatization as supporting evidence as to why bottles are bad or if he just wanted to put in his ten cents worth about that particular issue. Ortega uses bottles as a symbol of the water industry and for an example of what can happen if corporations are allowed to take over the industry. Ortega incorporates logos into his argument in order to influence to the reason and thoughts of his audience; getting them to think as he does.
Complimenting his use of pathos and logos, Ortega also incorporates slight sarcasm and overstatements as tools to produce a dramatic ending that calls his audience to action. This example, in my opinion, is somewhat cheesy but in the end it does make the reader stop and consider Ortega’s proposal. When addressing the issue of the role individual Americans should play in preserving public water, Ortega states, “It is our patriotic duty as Americans to ensure that it stays that way” (150). This statement arouses feelings of pride in Ortega’s audience and is a definite example of using pathos to stir the emotions in those reading your words. Telling the audience they have a “patriotic duty” brings a sense of obligation and a feeling of wanting to do whatever it takes to protect their country. Duty, honor, and obligation are strong words that call the audience to action. The overstatement provides a dramatic ending to Ortega’s argument and leaves his audience wanting to make a difference.
Ortega’s use of fear and diction is well placed and well timed; a clever way to distract his audience from his permeable argument. For one, the time periods of the studies that Ortega cites are somewhat out of date. One study is from the 1990s and the other begins in 1989. There have been improvements in the composition of water bottles since then. Federal organizations are set up to control and regulate the production of products so that they are safe for consumers. Ortega’s could strengthen his article and subsequent argument if his studies were current. Pathos provides the base of Ortega’s well-built argument, but with out of date evidence, it may leave his readers wondering what applies to them today.
Pathos and logos combine in this opinion editorial to form a one, two combination that is quite effective. Ortega’s appeal to pathos through fear draws in the audience and makes them listen. The transformation to factual evidence is smooth as Ortega lays it all down for the audience once he has their attention. A call to resist change falls on open ears as the majority of Ortega’s readers are liberal and support the status quo. A call to action leaves those activists already involved more motivated to not give up while striking courage in those still waiting to join the throng. As citizens of this country, this is a topic worth noticing. Privatization of the water industry can lead to increased bills and unchecked private operations within corporations. Ortega states, “Taking away your water is the same thing as putting a gun to your head” (150). He knows water equals life; he argues that being an American is about standing up and protecting that which is rightfully ours: the right to the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and life.

The Sham of all Scams!!!

Globalization: The Process
Met with Age-Old Controversy
Unemployment, no substantial alternative job and no savings are what many U.S. workers face when globalization hits their town. This is why the majority of blue-collar workers are against globalizing markets; it has the tendency to cause jobs to go to over-sea workers. On the opposite side of the spectrum, economists view globalization as a great way to making better products more efficiently, saving money. In the article “Globalization: Threat or Opportunity for the U.S. Economy” written by Robert T. Parry, he illustrates the pros and cons to globalization. The main purpose of this article was for the Hawaii Society of Investment Professionals in Honolulu to see the problems and also successes of globalization in the U.S. economy and then pose some solutions to make the benefits outweigh the problems. As a past CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Parry has great experience and knowledge that could help the dwindling economy. He uses logic to further his ethos so that members of the HSIP will accept his solutions for the economy that he talks about in this article. He knows that he must first establish himself as a credible theorist on the economy. So his main strategy is logically illustrating the pros and cons of his argument and then stressing that the cons can be neutralized, making globalization a great solution for the down turning economy.
Parry begins his article by using a logical title for himself: “monetary policymaker”. Just the use of this title alone boosts his ethos because it is implies that he knows a lot about economic struggles and triumphs. This use of diction shows the audience that he really is not just some economist speaking about the economy, but has real hands on experience and knows how to make the economy more efficient. This short statement boosts his ethos so that the HSIP will continue to listen to what he is saying and proposing. Parry really wants to nail down the fact that he knows a lot about the economy and his solutions to problems will bring lasting success. As a writer about the effects of globalization, it is essential to first make the audience trust your experience so that they know what you’re saying is not just mere speculation.
Parry goes on to pose questions that he answered logically through his article. He then defines and explains the main terms focused on in globalization. These terms are free trade, outsourcing and offshoring. Parry uses many analogies to help bring meaning to terms that can seem abstract at times. He gives the analogy of a family, symbolizing how free trade works in a nation. Families don’t make everything they use; they use money to cut costs. To Parry, a country works no different. A country can’t possibly make all products cheaper than anyone else can, so they have to buy products from abroad. The use of this analogy helps many of Parry’s audience to further gasp the concept of free trade. Also, this analogy helps define what Parry’s view of free trade is. There are many definitions to this term, so stating that it is trading for needed goods helps bring further acceptance to Parries argument.
To help the HISP understand outsourcing and offshoring, he uses more analogies that logically fulfill his purpose of bringing conformity and approval of his solutions. He gives the example of Michigan car manufacturers who buy brake pads from Ohio suppliers and not same state suppliers. The reasoning behind this is to cut cost and bring in revenue. Similar to offshoring, outsourcing to Parry is a, “global cousin”. Parry uses the analogy of firms that purchase services from overseas providers and not same nation providers. The idea behind this practice is to also to lower cost, increasing profit. These analogies really do help the audience grasp the concept of these two terms. With unanimous understanding of what Parry is talking about, he can move on to propose solutions that can better the U.S. economy and the HSIP will agree on them. This is the sole purpose of Parry’s speech; he wants to show the world that really there is something that can be done in this economic predicament.
Parry also knows that to make the HSIP believe he is a credible speaker he must use hard data to logically support his claims and propositions. His first claim is that globalization causes economic activity to flow in a two way, not one way direction. A loss of U.S. jobs can also means an economic boost in activity. He gives an example to support this claim by showing in 2003 there was $77 billion worth of foreign services bought, but the real value of these services came to about $130 billion. Parry is showing that even though much foreign services were bought, the U.S. was able to use these services and make great profit. The use of this analogy supports Parry’s claims, thus boosting his ethos as a speaker. Logical appeal is the best way to boost someone’s ethical appeal. Parry knows this and this is why all throughout the whole article he uses logos to back up his claims. It is hard to deny a claim that has been backed up by proof. This helps Parry tell the HSIP that really globalization is not as bad as most people think it is.
Parry also has another claim about globalization that shows the positive aspect. He explains that free trade creates great opportunities in the U.S. because it boosts foreign economies. The demand for goods will thus increase in those countries, making increase trade with the U.S. economy. Parry makes an allusion to Dell computer factories in China. He states that when the U.S. began buying offshore computer parts, the prices for this equipment lowered costs 10%-30%. This is great for the U.S. because they can one build more computers for less, making more profits. This shows that the effect of globalization increased the productivity growth in the U.S. This allusion supports Parry’s claim that free trade helps boost the U.S.’s economy. We saw that because the U.S. traded with China, it was able to make more profit than without buying from China. With these examples of the positive aspect of globalization, Parry knows he must now bring up the negative aspects and give possible solutions. With just stating the positive aspects of globalization, Parry’s article would be a very weak argument for globalization. You need to talk about both sides of an issue to be successful. This is why Parry, now touches on the great increase in standard of living and better quality of products as a result of globalization.
Parry sets a positive and upbeat tone about productivity to help show the positive side of globalization. He explains that because of this increase of productivity in the U.S., there is a surge of efficiency in the economy. Efficiency is the key to building a powerful economy. Greater efficiency, Parry explains, creates a greater standard of living because more Americans can produce more quality products making more profit. This positive tone about productivity almost makes the reader forget the negative denotation of efficiency; reduced number of jobs. Parry even gives another analogy of internet businesses. These businesses require fewer employees and have caused many occupations such as travel agents and stock brokers to be less needed. But Parry doesn’t emphasize this aspect, but overstates that the internet increases profits and efficiency. Understating the negative effects of the internet is a great way to influence and audience to your way of thinking. This is the main reason Parry is doing this, he wants his audience to see that globalization really doesn’t have any negative aspects. Productivity, efficiency all over shadow such negative features.
The end of Parry’s article both sums up his reasoning’s about globalization and then leads logically into solutions that will make loss of jobs completely unnecessary. He explains that globalization both provides support for the economy and also generates new jobs that have been lost. He even gives a counter argument for those who are against globalization by saying that if there are measures made to slow job losses, it will limit and severely slow the economic growth. Parry explains that the only such policies that should be made to help workers that lose jobs should be ones that help them be more flexible in times change. Such policies like unemployment insurance are examples of positive aid for the unemployed.
The final solution Parry poses to the issue of globalization is a reasonable one: education. Parry does not deny that job loss will occur with globalization. Therefore, to counteract this negative aspect, he suggests that all people strive to gain as much education as possible. Parry knows that this is extremely difficult to implement and costly, but he know that if people gain sufficient education, they can be on the edge of new technology and productivity. Education provides workers flexibility and also the ability to learn new skills making them more eligible to be employed. This solution gives much hope to the working classes. Parry is not stating that people will always be out of jobs and unemployed because of outsourcing and offshoring. He is providing hope that if they will work hard and take the time to gain education, they can continue to be in the market for jobs. Parry’s positive tone at the end of this argument causes the HSIP to accept the terms of globalization, but not be distressed. He wants this feeling to be at the end of this argument so that people will believe in his solutions, maintaining his credibility.
In closing, Parry’s argument about globalization really had no particular stance for or against globalization. He did not choose any side; he stated facts and what the effects of globalization are. What he did do, purposefully, was to not stress the negative aspects as much as the positive. His reasoning: get his propositions and solutions across. Parry knew that he could never get the HSIP to believe that there was nothing negative about globalization. So he decided to point out that really globalization isn’t that bad and that negative impacts can be eased by education. Education is what Parry really wants to have his audience to remember. He puts this solution at the very end so that it will be remembered most. He wants to effect the HSIP in such a way that they will think less negatively on globalization and know that with proper education and training, no one will be left unemployed with no place to go. This is Parry’s sole purpose of the article. If the majority of people believe globalization is not a bad thing, than it can increase, bringing increased revenue and productivity to the U.S. economy. This in turn will help the nation in the long run and it will continue as a world super power.

Manipulation?

Kofi Annan, the 7^th Secretary General of the United Nations, gave a lecture at Colombia University in 2003 about immigration. In it he stated that both host countries and immigrants stand to benefit from interaction if immigration is handled and monitored in an efficient, successful, and humane way. Annan’s purpose behind this lecture was to remind his audience, mainly the students and faculty of a highly prestigious American University, that America was built on immigration and that immigration is needed for both a singular nation and an integrated world to be successful. He tries to persuade his audience that the world must work together “rationally, creatively, compassionately and cooperatively” in order for this success to be achieved. (85) Throughout his argument, he uses appeals to his ethos as well as appeals to the effects of pathos and logos on his audience. He draws upon each of these appeals to manipulate native-born Americans into believing in the importance of immigration for both the United States and the world at large.

Annan establishes a sense of trust amongst his audience in order to manipulate their thinking and get them to believe that immigration is essential. One way he does this by convincing them of his knowledge on the topic of immigration when he says, “New York… is a brilliant success story of migration…in the year 2000, some 175 million people, about 3 percent of the world’s population, lived outside their country of birth.”(85) This appeal to knowledge reinforces his facts and makes the audience believe, at least initially, any conclusions that he draws from numbers, examples, and assumptions. This is because if the audience believes that Kofi Annan is trustworthy in his knowledge he will most likely be trustworthy in his conclusions. Annan uses an appeal to his ethos to manipulate the students and faculty of Colombia University into believing his opinion on immigration. The audience is apt to listen to what he has to say because of his prestigious position. They automatically believe that he knows what he is speaking about and therefore trust him right off the bat. Throughout his speech he uses intelligent, articulate, and concise language to argue his point. This further adds to establishing his ethos because it shows the audience that he is an intelligent man. This reinforces the audience’s trust in his ethos. Because Annan establishes this trust with his audience, the audience is willing to hear what he has to say about the topic.

Annan further establishes his ethos by showing his audience that he is understanding of any concerns they might have. He uses this sense of understanding to manipulate his readers into believing the need for successful, lenient monitoring of immigration. He says “I am not suggesting that all these problems could be solved at a stroke simply by lifting all restrictions on migrations.”(88) By acknowledging a counter argument Annan shows the audience that he is willing to understand things from different perspectives and points of view. By so doing, Annan does not alienate his audience, but rather he draws them in. This effect on the audience enables Annan’s theory that immigration is what is best for the United States as well as the entire world to better convince the audience. The audience is more willing to listen and ultimately be convinced by his argument when they feel that the speaker is conscientious and understanding of different points of view. Annan is conscientious of the effects of using these tools and he uses them to manipulate his audience into looking at the issue from his angle.

Annan also uses appeals to the effects of logos to manipulate and persuade the audience that immigration can be beneficial for both immigrant and host country alike. He knows that if the audience is allowed to use their own minds to draw conclusions they are more likely to agree with his argument. For example, Annan gives the assumption that immigrants “perform many services that the host population is eager to consume, but is either unwilling or unable to provide for itself—from highly skilled work in research or information technology to less skilled jobs tending fields, nursing the sick and elderly, working on construction sites, running corner shops that stay open all night, or looking after children and doing housework while parents are out pursuing careers.”(86) This use of logos has the effect of making the audience believe that they are drawing their own conclusions about the positive work that immigrants can do. But in actuality, Annan is gently nudging and manipulating the audience in a way that supports his cause. Annan is able to guide his audience to his own conclusions under the guise that they are coming up with their own ideas. Therefore, this use of logos helps to persuade the audience that immigration is a needed tool for the success of a singular nation and a cooperative world.

Annan appeals to logos again as he tries to manipulate students and faculty of Colombia University into believing that immigration is necessary for a nation and the rest of the world to reap the benefits. However, this second appeal to logos is more forceful than the first. Annan uses the tool of an overstatement when he says that “migration is one of the tool’s we have to help put more of the world’s people on the right side of—and ultimately, to eliminate—the vast divides that exist today between poor and rich, and between fettered and free.” (86) This use of logos does not allow the audience to feel that they are making their own conclusions, but rather makes a dramatic conclusion for the audience itself. No measures can be taken to ultimately “eliminate” the disparities in the world today, however because Annan uses the technique of an overstatement he is able to fool his audience into believing that this is the correct step to take. This appeal to logos manipulates the reader into feeling that monitoring immigration can benefit both the host country and the rest of the world.

Kofi Annan uses many appeals to pathos in order to guide and manipulate the audience’s emotions in a way that is beneficial to supporting his argument. Annan uses these emotional appeals to make his audience agree that immigration is capable of benefiting both the United States and the rest of the world. Throughout the lecture, Annan refers to the “human rights” of immigrants and how these rights are inherent and cannot be violated. “Human rights” is a loaded phrase that sparks an emotional reaction in the audience. It makes the audience feel that if they object to immigration, they are objecting to the inherent rights of people. No one wants to feel that they disagree with giving people the basic rights that they deserve. Annan takes advantage of this loaded phrase and uses it to make the audience support immigration and believe that it can benefit the United States and the world as a whole.

Perhaps Annan’s most successful attempt to appeal to the audience pathetically is through the use of patriotism. Annan begins and ends his lecture by making allusions to the Statue of Liberty, “Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door”(92). Annan is aware that his audience at Colombia University is most likely highly patriotic because the University is located in New York City, the heart of America. He takes advantage of this patriotism and reminds the audience that America was built on immigration. The audience is unlikely to object to such a patriotic claim. Therefore, Annan knowingly uses the effects of patriotism to manipulate his audience into believing that immigration is a beneficial tool.

Kofi Annan’s “Lecture on the International Flows of Humanity” gives appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos in order to manipulate and persuade the audience into believing that immigration is beneficial for America as well as for the rest of the world as a whole. He draws the audience in with appeals to his specialized knowledge on the matter and builds a sense of trust with his listeners. He then appeals to the audience’s sense of logic and uses this to manipulate their thinking in a way that parallels his argument. Finally, he appeals to their emotions through the use of emotionally charged language and patriotic allusions. Taken as a whole these appeals effectively manipulate the audience of Colombia University into feeling the importance of cooperatively and respectfully monitoring immigration.

A Motivating Call to Action

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines motivation as the act or process of motivating. This one word can summarize the message that was meant to be sent out by Joshua Ortega when he wrote “Water Wars: Bottling up the World's Supply of H2O” for the Seattle Times. The kind of motivation sent out in his message was not any ordinary type of motivation; it was the motivation to act. He did so with the citizens of Seattle, Washington in mind. Throughout the article Joshua Ortega uses disastrous hypothetical and real-life situations, obscure raw statistics and benefits of switching from bottled to tap in relation to what it is that the readers of the Seattle Time already know and believe in order to convince them of the need to switch from bottled to tap water. The writer does not only uses the elements previously mentioned but also puts to use a whole arsenal of appeals to pathos, logos, and ethos.
When Ortega is trying to convince the people of Seattle of something of the upmost importance, he does not mince words with them. This holds true when reviewing the style of which Ortega uses to begin his article. He begins with the opening statement of, “Clean, unpolluted, affordable water. There is nothing more important in the world-but it’s in serious danger.” This use of diction helps convey the arguable fact that water is the most important thing in the world. With that statement might come the reasoning of “If water is the most important thing in the world, shouldn’t we be worried if it is in danger?” This type of thinking would be reason enough for the reader to direct his or her attention to what it is they are reading. The tone of “Now that you know what’s going on, shouldn’t we do something about it?” is carried on throughout the paper. It can be seen when Ortega describes what could happen if water was privatizes and sold on the market to the highest bidder. He ends that paragraph with the statement, “Otherwise water will be subject to the same whims of business as any other commodity.” With the comparison of water to any other kind of commodity the previously mentioned mind set is visible. It makes for an interesting article that has the potential to motivate the citizens of Seattle to swift and blind action.
This articles ideal audience is that of the Seattle area. After inquiring about the general ideals of those from that general area, it is my understanding that the people of the Seattle area are more conservative when it comes to issues dealing with the earth and the environment. This is made clear by the many references to history, and statistics that would appeal to the majority of the people in Seattle. An example of this is when the author mentions that only 10 percent of all the bottles sold here in the US were recycled. The reason that this reference is so powerful is due to the fact that Seattle is big on recycling and with a reference like that it is almost sure to grab the attention of its readers. This is also seen in the last part of the article that is more of a self made question and answer session with Joshua Ortega, there to calm all you fears that have been developed just by reading the article.
It is interesting to see how fast Ortega moves to establish the fact that tap water is the best alternative to bottled water, considering the audience that he is focusing his message on. This is initiated with a statement, that is really an overstatement, that says “From health and environmental concerns to the very question of who should control the Earth’s water supply, the issue can be distilled into a simple opening proposition: tap or bottled water?” It can be determined that the use of this overstatement is a push to oversimplify the argument at hand and help the reader hone in on what it is that the author wants the reader to focus on. Once the readers of the Seattle Times focuses its attention on what it is that Ortega wants, Ortega’s job of convincing to action becomes much easier.
As the writer continues his efforts to convey his point, he uses figurative speaking that in some respects builds his credibility as a writer. He speaks of foreign businesses that are buying U.S. water companies and also refers to the privatizing of water companies as a problem rather than a solution. The point of Ortega bringing all this up is to help the reader understand that there needs to be concern over who controls our water and, by extension, whether we should use bottled of tap water.
The appeal to emotion as a motivator is one of the more common factors that Ortega uses to convey his message to his Seattle sudience. It can be seen in the allusion that recounts the time when the government of Ontario, Canada deregulated its water protection infrastructure and privatized its water testing labs. As mentioned in the article, it was “…disastrous for many communities. In the small Canadian town of Walkerton, seven people died and more than 200 were sickened from drinking E. coli-contaminated water in 2000. ”. When reading this story the audience is meant to feel some sort of emotion. Before this allusion to the past was referenced, the author had built up a set of statistics and facts that should have caused some sort of worry in the reader and now with this sad story being recalled the call on the emotion as a motivator is more readily to be answered. If the anecdote about the tragedy isn’t enough for the reader, Ortega decides to follow it up with a reference to Third World Situations that, as he states, are “even worse”. It is safe to say that the writer, with these two references of sadness, one close to home in Canada and another on the needy foreign soil of Third World countries, plays on the emotion of sadness and heartfelt pity as a motivation to action.
Another time when the author plays on the reader’s emotion is in the fifth to the last paragraph where he uses the simile of “Water however, is a necessity. Taking away your water is the same as putting a gun to your head. This is an unacceptable proposition.” Just as before, the audience is meant to feel an emotion after reading this passage. The one that strikes me first is that of “How dare you” or of pride. Notice how the author phrased that statement. The notion of putting a gun to one’s head is powerful enough, but when coupled with what has already been said concerning the topic of our water, this statement has quite to mental impact on the reader. It was also followed by a statement that characterized the resilience of the human spirit. The connotation of putting one’s foot down as demonstrated in the previously mentioned sentence is a way for Ortega to ask the reader to choose a side on the issue if he or she has not done so already.
The closing remarks of the article carry a powerful message to the audience through the medium of words and tone. Ortega not only plays on the emotion of fear but also on the strong emotion of patriotism. In the last paragraph he closes with, “Above all else, remember that it’s not too late. Clean affordable water is still a reality in this country. It is our patriotic duty as Americans to ensure that it stays that way.” If this is not a call to rally the troops around old glory then I don’t know what is. This powerful closing remark about making sure that water is cheap and affordable in this country and about how it’s our patriotic duty to do so is a play on the already readied to action reader. By the time the reader has come to this piece of the article he or she has been bombarded with everything from hypothetical wars over water to heart wrenching stories of death and turmoil. It is safe to say that Ortega’s play on the emotion of the audience as well as their reasoning in order to funnel the reader into the position of not only them willing to agreeing with him but also placing in them a call to action.

Clean, Affordable Water: A Hope for the Future

“Clean, unpolluted, affordable water. There is nothing more important in the world-but it’s in serious danger” (146). The opening line of Ortega’s, “Water Wars: Bottling Up the World’s Supply of H2O,” expresses his cause with heavily weighted words which strongly convey the message he provides for his readers. He is writing to show the seriousness of the global water crisis we face and the detriment caused by the recent bottled water epidemic. His desire is for each and every reader to be inspired to break from the common perception of bottled water and to not take for granted the clean public water that people in developed countries are fortunate enough to have. Throughout the article Ortega makes clever use of a variety of literary devices to strike fear into his audience so that he may convert them to his cause. He approaches the article with an authoritative tone immediately establishing his credibility. While establishing himself he supplements his article with facts to establish a logical argument.
Ortega takes on a mocking tone in the article that he uses to establish his dominance over the audience and to establish his superior knowledge. He insinuates that the reader is uninformed on the bottled water issue. He mentions that, “As Americans, we are all fortunate enough to live in a country where clean, drinkable water is a reality” (146). The audience would not know the problems facing other countries with their water supply. At the same time, it is assumed that the reader will automatically side with the writer on this issue. In the case of this article, it is likely that the intended reader would immediately agree with the author. This article was originally published in the Seattle Times. Readers of the Seattle Times are generally more liberal than other parts of the country. Liberal audiences usually hold the environment as one of their tenets and would, therefore, welcome the idea of eliminating bottled water if it were the means to reach an end of saving the environment. Ortega also mocks big business throughout his article. “Water corporations exist to make profits-not to preserve water’s quality or affordability” (149). This comment makes it seem like big business has no interest in the health and safety of its products. In fact big business must care a great deal for the health and safety of the consumer. If safety is disregarded, no profit will be made. In general, a liberal audience would also welcome such a disregard for big business and a capitalistic economy. Liberals usually seek greater regulation of industry, a principle which Ortega is banking on.
Early in the article Ortega uses his scientific diction and appeals to logic to continue the feeling of inferiority for the audience and to introduce a fear of the unknown. He states, “One-fifth of the sampled bottled waters contained known neurotoxins and carcinogens such as styrene, toluene and xylene” (146). It is likely that Ortega’s audience is not made up of chemists or scientists. So it if fairly safe to assume that the everyday working people that he is writing to have not been exposed to technical chemical names of plastics. The audience would not really know if these substances were harmful or not if Ortega had not included the words “neurotoxins” and “carcinogens.” Inclusion of these technical terms does establish some credibility to the author. It shows that he is informed on the subject that he is writing about. But more than establishing ethos, these words are meant to scare the audience. Carcinogens carries with it a deeper meaning of fear and the technical jargon only serves to reinforce this fear.
Fear is again introduced in the following paragraph when a rhetorical question is posed to the reader to question the reader’s faith in his own country. “But how can bottled water be contaminated and still be sold in the U.S.” (146)? At first the question seems harmless enough. The government should be able to regulate the water sold in bottles to ensure its safety. Again a loaded word is used in this question. Contaminated carries stronger connotations than other possible word choices such as impure or unclean. This question also implies that the United States of all places should be free from contaminated water. It gives the feeling that one is not safe to have water anywhere without the fear of “contamination.” But according to Ortega this feeling should already be evident.
Ortega makes great use of an analogy in his article to compare the clearness of a plastic water bottle to the clearness he feels that his article should give to the bottled water situation. “Whether in America or less-developed countries, the evidence is as clear as the plastic it’s sold in-bottled water, compared to good tap water, is not worth the costs, whether they be environmental, health related or economic” (147). Comparing the facts of his article to the clarity of a plastic water bottle provides a great image of the way he wants his article seen. It is again assumed that the reader will agree with the author about the bottled water issue. For an individual who disagrees with the evidence, it may not be quite as clear. If I may provide an analogy of my own, “The evidence, to one of a different opinion, may be as impure as the carcinogen filled plastic bottled water is sold in.” Ortega uses his tone to mock the reader. The reader’s ability to analyze the evidence and decide for himself whether tap or bottled water is better for the environment and economy is jeopardized by this analogy. Ortega is stating that the reader need not look further than this article to know the facts about world water issues.
The author uses an allusion to confirm fears of American water privatization. He compares the potential privatization of our water system to the privatization of the French, British and Canadian water systems. Seeking again to strike fear into his readers he mentions the fact that French water rates increased by 150 percent, that Wessex, a British company, has been prosecuted 128 times for various infractions, and that deregulation of water-testing labs in Canada led to disastrous results with seven people dying and hundreds of others getting sick. These facts bring a valid fear of a privatized water system. Each of these countries has government and economic situations similar to the United States. If privatization caused these problems in other wealthy nations it is very appropriate to compare these countries to the problems that would face a privatization of water in the United States.
Ortega closes the article with a powerful metaphor that leaves the reader feeling a poignant description of the fear he seeks to instill. “Taking away your water is the same thing as putting a gun to your head” (150). It seems very appropriate that he would use a metaphor here rather than an analogy. A metaphor carries with it a stronger meaning here. Taking away your water is not simply like putting a gun to your head it is putting a gun to your head. Water is an essential resource that each one of us needs to live. Taking away one’s water would inevitably bring death to that individual. This is not acceptable in any nation. Ortega knows that water is a necessity and that its removal would kill a person, but he uses the metaphor of a gun to the head to possibly show the immediacy of the situation. Essentially he is saying that the threat is real, it is here, and it must be dealt with now.
This article effectively conveys the importance of the bottled water and water privatization issues. Though targeted to a liberal audience that would generally agree with everything Ortega wrote, it would demonstrate to any reader the dangers of bottled water and water privatization. Ortega uses his mocking tone of the audience to express his annoyance of ignorance rather than to insult his reader’s knowledge. Throughout the article he uses fear as his primary motivation for change. He begins with the fear of disease by mentioning the many carcinogens in plastic bottles. The fear perpetuates with the idea that even products sold in the United States could be contaminated and continues through the death of seven Canadians caused by water privatization. Ortega uses powerful analogies, allusions, and metaphors which all directly apply to his audience and bring a sense of familiarity to the issue at hand. He ends by again stating his intent, “Remember that it’s not too late. Clean, affordable water is still a reality in this country. It is our patriotic duty as Americans to ensure that it stays that way” (150). A final call to action seems very appropriate to an audience that has been converted to Ortega’s cause. It does not feel as though he is simply giving the reader a call to action. It feels more like he is reawakening the reader’s patriotic duty.