Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Errol Morris’s “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire” article brilliantly compares the link between images and beliefs. According to Morris, images by themselves describe an abstract event, scenery, story, and/or particular time. The description of the image remains subject to the viewer’s individual bias. To put it another way, images are simply the reflection of a viewer’s beliefs. A particular picture represents anything the viewer wants it to represent when the picture lacks a caption. When my mother sees an old picture of great Aunt Sally her childhood memories shape the way she perceives the picture. My beliefs regarding the picture of my great Aunt Sally probably differ from those of my mother because my memories (or lack thereof) of great Aunt Sally differ. Therefore no one can say that my observance of the picture is correct and my mother’s is inherently wrong. The cliché phrase, a picture is worth a thousand words, may be one hundred percent correct, “but there are two words that you can never apply to [a picture]: ‘true’ and ‘false’” (Morris).

An example highlighting the ideas of Morris is found on Susie Larson’s blog (http://www.susielarson.com/blog/). Each blog post begins with a caption-less picture. The picture used for her January 9^th blog shows a rocky river with a forest-y backdrop.

Caption-less picture 

                                                               I think the picture was taken in Montana at Glacier National Park because I recall passing by a similar river scene when I visited the park several years ago. To me the picture represents tranquility, nature, peace, and quite: the same emotions I recall feeling on my visit. Am I correct? Was the picture truly taken at Glacier National Park and taken for the purpose of invoking calmness? What if a caption appeared under the picture that said “Site of Deadly Grizzly Attack”?  Suddenly the scene in the picture saddens me, and the good memories of my vacation disappear. I imagine the unknown victim desperately fighting for survival.

Absent of captions, pictures, especially those circulating the web, run the risk of being widely and falsely interpreted. I think that is the point Morris’s tries to emphasize in his article, and I concur with him. 

Taking an Approach....Hmmm

It appears as if Harris values the writing tool he calls “Taking an Approach.” He dedicates an entire chapter of his book elaborating on what is meant by “taking an approach,” but it seems to me that this academic writing tool does not have much importance. In any case, taking an approach does not mean using the ideas or words of another writer and putting them into a new context; that is what forwarding does. It does not mean respectfully challenging the stance of another writer’s work; that is what countering does. Rather, taking an approach means working in the same manner as that of another writer. Perhaps the best way to take an approach would be to analyze how the author reaches their conclusion and how the author deals with information. Taking an approach requires both your own thinking and the thoughts of the original writer to change. The change in thoughts simply reshapes the original idea; the original idea still exists but looks different. You can take an approach by applying these methods of working in the mode of another writer: acknowledging influences, turning an approach on itself, and reflexivity. Briefly, the first method, acknowledging influences, allows you to note the writers who help shape your thoughts and interests. The second method, turning an approach on itself, means that you apply the same questions to the writer that the writer asks to others. Lastly, reflexivity simply gives an author the opportunity to openly reflect on the choices he or she made while forming their writing.

The New York Times ran an article about gender equality in their opinion section. The author of the article, Stephanie Coontz, writes a brief history of gender equality in the United States and how this equality has been changing. She implicitly reflects and acknowledges her influences near the beginning and end of her article. For example, it appears as though the reason Coontz wrote the article was because, at the time of the article’s publication, it was “the 50^th anniversary of the publication of Betty Friedan’s international best seller, “The Feminine Mystique.” By acknowledging why she decided to write the article, Coontz gives an example of an author “taking an approach.” This helps the reader understand the author’s thoughts towards writing their article.

            I realize this is not the greatest example of “taking an approach,” but I encountered many difficulties in finding a good example. Perhaps good examples do not exist?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/why-gender-equality-stalled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion&

Short Essay: Trotter and Freedom

Hannah Szabo

Professor Eric Leake

Original Article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/07/gayle-trotter-the-woman-who-called-gun-control-sexist.html

Freedom’s New Hero: Gayle Trotter Speaks Out

            A successful conservative woman who relates gun control to sexism does not stand a chance of being taken seriously on the left-leaning website The Daily Beast. Indeed, author Caitlin Dickson negatively portrayed Gayle Trotter in her article “Gayle Trotter: The Woman Who Called Gun Control Sexist,” which I recently found on The Daily Beast.  This news and opinion site targets liberal-minded readers with stories titled “Distrust of Fox News Hits New High,” “The Hagel Witch-Hunt,” and “In Wichita, the Ground Zero of the Abortion War, a New Clinic Rises.” I decided to rewrite Dickson’s article about Gayle Trotter as if the article had appeared on The Foundry, a conservative blog-child of the Heritage Foundation Research Institute. The Foundry takes an extremely pro-gun stance and supports the National Riffle Association. I knew that rewriting the Daily Beast article for The Foundry would require me to change the originally hostile language to heartening diction. I replaced some of the comments Dickson included of Trotter’s critics with evidence from reliable research and direct quotes given by Trotter herself. In doing so I created a new article titled “Freedom’s New Hero: Gayle Trotter Speaks Out,” by the esteemed blogger Hannah Szabo.

            She does not call herself a political activist, but Gayle Trotter sparked some excitement in the political world at a Senate hearing on gun control last week. Trotter, a successful mother of six and D.C. lawyer at a firm she built with her father, claimed guns “are the great equalizer” for women. According to Trotter, a woman equipped with a firearm has the ability to protect her children and the confidence to defend her family against hardened criminals. She also said women are “especially important potential beneficiaries of the Second Amendment.” Trotter made these comments in an effort to sway the opinions of Senators seeking to tighten background checks for current and potential gun owners. Immediately critics went off to attack her. They called Trotter insane, untrustworthy, and outrageous, but ignorantly overlooked the evidence she gave defending her statement. In fact, the evidence supporting Trotter’s claim make her critics look like the insane, untrustworthy, and outrageous ones.

            Take, for example, concealed carry laws. Research shows that states restricting women from carrying concealed handguns have twenty-five percent more rapes than states with nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws. Or consider the fact that between 2001 and 2010 only six to nine percent of violent victimizations were executed with firearms. That means violent criminals rely more on their physical size and strength than on guns to attack women. This puts woman at a disadvantage due to the fact that men have genetically stronger bodies. The ability for women to carry a firearm levels the playing field and switches the balance of power before a violent conflict occurs.

            Along with solid evidence and logical claims, Trotter used a compelling story about Sarah McKinley to support her pro-gun stance. McKinley had been alone at home with her baby when two violent intruders broke down the front door to steal her deceased husband’s medication. She frantically called 911, but it was too late; the intruders were quickly approaching and ready to attack. McKinley, scared for her and her son’s life, fired her gun at the callous criminals. She fatally wounded one intruder and scared off the other. With the aid of a fire arm McKinley effectively defended herself, her son, and her home. McKinley’s story does not stand alone. Trotter offers twenty-one impressive accounts of women successfully using firearms to protect themselves from violent men.

            It is important to note that Trotter gave her valid testimony to supporters of stricter background checks for gun ownership; these are the same supporters who reference the invalid “forty percent” statistic to make their argument. The hackneyed mantra that forty percent of gun sales come from gun shows where criminal background checks are waived fails to reflect reality. The Washington Post revealed the forty percent statistic came from a telephone survey of only two hundred and fifty people who bought firearms in 1993 and 1994. The survey took place four years before the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) went into effect. The NICS requires federal firearm dealers to conduct background checks for all firearm sales, including sales from gun shows. Basing an argument off of this survey is similar to relying on a basketball for directions: it just does not make sense.

            When critics blast Trotter as a dangerous, gun-loving, extreme right-wing nut job, remember the reliable facts, evidence, and affinity of case studies supporting gun rights. Trotter’s testimony before the Senate should act as inspiration for all Americans concerned with our diminishing freedom. We need to defend freedom and not be ashamed to say, in the words of Trotter, “I am an unapologetically liberty-loving, tyranny-hating, red-blooded, patriotic American … who is proud to say that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the founding charters of freedom and that government of the people, for the people and by the people is here to stay.”

Works Cited

Dickson, Caitlin. “Gayle Trotter: The Woman Who Called Gun Control Sexist.” The Daily

Beast. 7 Feb. 2013. Web. 9 Feb. 2013.

Kessler, Glenn. “The Stale Claim That 40 Percent of Gun Sales Lack Background Checks.” The

Washington Post - Blogs 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.

Countering FTW

Link to Blaze Article

Harris’s third chapter, titled “Countering” differs form the previous chapter on forwarding in an interesting manner. While forwarding allows a writer to harmoniously draw on the works of others to advance his or her position, countering disagrees with the work of other writers and uses that disagreement as a way to “open up new lines of inquiry” (Harris 57). Authors do not necessarily counter, or disagree, with one another with hostility or heated debate. Writers counter with one another not to win a debate or put an end to a conversation. Rather, the goal of countering is to add new perspectives to the debate and push its limits. Unlike forwarding, countering requires the writer to first come to terms with a particular text. After all, how can an author define the failures of a text before understanding what the original author’s purpose and meaning was? Harris categorizes countering into three subgroups: arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. Arguing the other side means applying a positive connotation to what the original author sees as negative or applying a negative connotation to what the original author sees as positive. Our writing always carries meanings that we have not intended. That is why uncovering values is also a form of countering. Uncovering values analyzes a word or phrase that has been vaguely or deficiently defined or even undefined. Dissenting is when a writer seeks to evaluate the limits of another’s text but first establishes agreeable claims within the text.

            In a blog post from The Blaze, I found an article representing what Harris defines as countering. Titled “Where are the Benghazi Survivors?” Meredith Jessup seeks to uncover some hidden truths about the infamous Benghazi attack. Jessup agrees with the information from witnesses and security officials (published via the Associated Press), but highlights the story’s limits. Jessup explains, “While four Americans were killed in the attack at the consulate and safe house, many others managed to escape. Where are the survivors?” She inquires about the lack of information presented by the Associated Press and others in high security positions and analyzes the vagueness of certain statements.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/#post-522740

Forwarding FTW

Link to Daily Beast Article

Joseph Harris once again seems to hit the nail on the head with his chapter titled “Forwarding.” What I mean by this is that everything Harris mentions in this chapter seems to coincide perfectly with our class discussions. It appears as though, as a class, we establish a sort of theory regarding writing in the Information Age, and then our “theory” becomes solidified through Harris’s work. “Forwarding,” according to Harris, refers to the process by which writers take “ideas and phrases from what they have read and reuse them in approaching a different set of issues and texts” (Harris 37). I understand forwarding as a way of using sources in multiple different manners to support your argument. The multiple different manners of using sources include illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, and extending. They are all used by the writer to advance his or her project. Illustrating helps writers introduce or explain their argument. Authorizing gives writers credibility because it provides a dependable and professional scholarly view of a particular topic. Borrowing simply means taking a particular term or phrase from another writer and using it to advance your own project. Extending, on the other hand, takes a term or phrase from another writer and then elaborates on the term, perhaps in a manner that does not reflect (but neither contradicts) the original meaning.

            I went to The Daily Beast website to find an example of forwarding. Robert Shrum wrote an article titled “Obama Must Fight One More Campaign: To Keep Senate & Win House in 2014,” where he argued that the only way the President can fulfill his agenda is through a third term. Note: Shrum refers to the third term as the 2014 Congressional elections, not the 2016 Presidential election, where a third term would be unconstitutional. In this article Shrum authorizes his claim by using irrefutable data. He also practices forwarding by borrowing the phrase commonly used by republicans, “bleed it with the sequester” to explain the impact of the spending cuts. These examples of forwarding add a level of reliability to the article because they allow the reader to gain an additional perspective regarding a topic while simultaneously reading Shrum’s opinion. By not elaborating on the republican’s meaning behind the phrase, “bleed it with the sequester,” Shurm’s article does take on a bit of bias, because he used the term to advance his own agenda.  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/08/obama-must-fight-one-more-campaign-to-keep-senate-win-house-in-2014.html