TOW#7 Redskins Controversy Article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-carpowich/solution-to-redskins-name_b_5897468.html

Recently there ha been much controversy about the name of the Washington D.C. Redskins, a NFL football team. The team’s name has been questioned because of it’s insensitive portrayal of the American Indians. The author of this article, Mark Carpowich, hopes to bring some compromise to this discrepancy. Carpowich uses anecdotes to propose a solution to this problem that the readers agree with and an allusion to a negative event to refute any arguments that could be made by the team’s owner trying to keep the name. Carpowich titles his article, “Solution to Redskins Name Controversy May Be on the 'Playground'” and in his text he talks about a recent document that surfaced that could offer closure to this problem called Playground of the Native Son. This is a film by Cilia Xavier, which tells the story of the underdog Hominy Indians who formed a football team, which beat the New York Giants in 1927. Carpowich’s solution is to rename the team after the Hominy Indian team, not only would the owner be able to keep the name, but also get free publicity from an upcoming movie on the event. In doing this he makes the audience agree with his viewpoint by appealing to logos by presenting the advantages of changing the team’s name. After Carpowich presents his solution, he refutes any counter argument that could be made by the Redskin’s owner by alluding to the case of Donald Sterling. Donald Sterling was the owner of a popular basketball team, the Los Angeles Clippers, who was videotaped calling members of his team racial slurs and was banned for life by the NBA. By alluding to this story, Carpowich presents an extreme that this controversy could be elevated to if the owner doesn’t find a compromise.

TOW #6 Political Cartoon

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/~/media/Images/KHN%20Features/2014/January/6%2010/Back%20In%20The%20Game%20512.png

This is a political cartoon that is dealing with the many delays and problems Obamacare faced in the early fazes of its implication. In emphasizing President Obama’s features, personifying Obamacare as a turtle, and juxtaposing the two images this cartoon hopes to poke fun at Obamacare and convince the reader that it is ineffective and make a statement about the president. This cartoon extenuates the president’s features; it makes his ears, which are received by the public as abnormally large, lips and nose abnormally large, and his head much smaller in comparison. While this cartoon hopes to make the president look ridiculous, it makes itself seem very racist by bringing out stereotypically large features among the black community and very degrading by making his head small which makes it look unintelligent. The cartoon also juxtaposes the turtle and Obama, to make Obama look ridiculous. The cartoon also chose to present Obamacare as a turtle flipped on it’s back; turtles are slow and lethargic animals and when flipped on their backs are immobilized and have no way to flip back over. By choosing to represent Obamacare as this, the cartoon states that Obamacare was slow at the start, but not that it has encountered these problem it has “flipped on it’s back” and will not be able to progress from this point. President Obama and this turtle are put side by side to compare them and to make a statement about the president’s policies. The cartoon hopes to make a fool out of Obama by showing him backing something so ridiculous as this turtle. It also seeks to compare the president to this turtle so say that Obama is not going to change anything and will just continue to lie on his back like the turtle. This cartoon, while witty and slightly amusing, comes off as stupid and a bit racist.

TOW #5 Hong Kong Protests Article analysis

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hong-kong-protests-shrink-leader-oks-talks-25935866?page=2

This article is reporting on the pro-democracy protests going on in Hong Kong China. The protesting youths hope to reverse the government’s decision to have all of the candidates, for the upcoming election in 2017, be approved by an appointed committee. Many other, visibly older, Hong Kong citizens have been trying to force the protesters off the streets, often using force, with little or no police retaliation or intervention. This article is structured to demonstrate the drastic differences between the two groups, pro-democracy and anti-democracy, and present some valid arguments and criticisms about both sides to give the reader a sense of how difficult the situation is. After the writer’s synopsis of the issue, they introduce both sides and what they are fighting for, and throughout the body of the article they alternate what side of the situation they present. The authors use any testimonies from residents of Hong Kong to give the readers an idea of how this event impacted the locals and their daily lives. The contrast in this article speaks to many of the areas of contrast in the actual event. The first is the obvious difference in opinion and political view point; the democrats want an election where they have a voice and they shape the government, and the anti-democrats want the order that the old system has provided. It also highlights the difference in age; the democrats are primarily younger voting age adults whereas the anti-democrats are mostly older. There is also a difference in tactics, the anti-democrats are very violent towards the peaceful protests of the democrats, often dragging the protesters and then beating them. This article brings in the ideas that the public is different from the protesters; while some of the public may support what the protesters stand for, the protests themselves interfere with their daily lives.