With all the present issues we see in Ferguson today many people believe that racism has lead these men and women to riot. Although racism contributes to Black-Nationalism which ultimately makes many of these rioters relate it is only the surface of the true issue at hand. You see, it’s not an issue of racism. The problem is the system, the system in which police officers are determined to be indicted. In this case, and in most cases, the grand jury did exactly what the District Attorney wanted them to do, nothing. The politics of prosecution when it comes to police officers is the problem because there’s almost always one certain ending, they aren’t charged of their crimes. This happens because the cops obtain convictions that win DA elections and every prosecutor knows that one of the things police officers hate the most is seeing one of their own on trail of being hauled off to jail. The grand jury system is a major problem when it comes to these scenarios because the jury and the prosecutors (without any judge or defense attorney) work together to find evidence needed to indict the suspect. These meetings are held behind closed doors where the defense cannot state their arguments because they aren’t allowed to be there. In the case with Garner (which was complete and utter injustice), the prosecutor did not want anything to happen so he successfully got the grand jury to sway in his direction. Black Nationalism is simply a catalyst to bring up these bigger problems. The real issue is that the police are policing themselves, and that is what needs to change.
I chose to continue my research on drone use, primarily focused on the use in military aspects. As I have stated before, I am fascinated by future technology and I believe drones, whether I like it or not are the future of warfare and quite soon will they be the future of everyday life. No doubt in my mind many organizations will try to use the full potential of drones to somehow maximize revenue. Currently the world is afflicted with the issue of whether or not drones are ethically fine to be used to in warfare. Each side does its fair share of wordplay. The pro-drone for example say things like “drones help keep our American soldier’s safe from harms way” and the anti-drone side argues “life should not be taken from someone clocking into work and pushing a button.” Both of which seem to be valid points, obviously each side has its pros and cons but the idea here is to determine which side’s positive aspects outweigh its negatives. My audience for this paper would have to be the younger generations who will fill in the spots of today’s leaders. If I am able to convince them that my take on drones is more appealing than the opposition, that influence will carry over to their work if they decide to pursue careers in politics or the military. I will do so by including charts and visual analysis because I am aware that younger audiences respond better to information given in that type of format. If we are to create a piece the way professionals do, I will mention the opposing side and refute, but I won’t include visuals when it comes to the opposing side, it will undermine my argument and render the rhetoric I use to be insignificant.
At this point everyone has gotten 2 sources ready for their project. I know i’m on track and I’m confident on knowing what to write since I have already made up my mind on the stance. The page count doesn’t bother me either since I ended up writing twice the minimum amount on the last paper. I’ve been fascinated by drones for a couple years now since they were first introduced to me as a gamer playing war games. Then, when you search the subject more you get to understand the ethics behind drone use. It becomes a much deeper and more controversial topic when morality is introduced. The underlying arguments are basically, is our morality more important than saving the lives of our soldiers or taking the lives of our enemies?
The Atlantic Magazine recently published Patrick Tucker’s article “The Navy’s Future Fleet of Swarming Boat-Drones,” which discusses the advantages of drone use but promotes the use of caution so they don’t get out of control. Patrick Tucker highlights the advantages of these drones throughout his article, in one instance he explains how these unmanned robotic boats effectively remove a soldier from the battlefield but manage to keep the tactics he/she would do and they spread that over a number of vehicles which can work together to carry out the same task (1). In respect to caution behind drone use, a major concern is “the security of these systems is also of critical importance because hackers, criminals, or enemies who take control of autonomous attack systems could wreak enormous havoc” (Tucker 1). Tucker effectively explains how drones have positive advantages and also makes a point on how they should be created and used with great caution.
Right now, I’m still unsure of whether or not to focus on one event or the topic of drones in general. The issue with one event would be finding an opposing side to the first argument which is easier to come across when thinking about the topic in general. This idea of a zero draft is still a bit confusing. The way I did it was annotate both articles and see what I would include within my first draft. I feel like this method is effective since I’m going back to the articles for every step of this process. I feel as though my best ideas come to mind while I’m writing an actual piece as opposed to “getting my thoughts on paper,” brainstorming was never really my thing.
I chose to write about drones and their ethical or general usefulness in modern day warfare. I felt like this is an extremely controversial topic due to the fact that people lives are at stake here. Drones are bound to surface to the new more and more frequently as we develop new technology, which is honestly hard not to do when America spends more on defense than the next 25 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies. However childish it may sound, video games raised my awareness on drones at first. Then I began to research this idea of this godly technology because lets be honest, a couple decades ago a plane without a pilot dropping bombs would have put the fear of God into all of its enemies. This topic is entirely a matter of perspective, some might see it as a way to save lives by keeping soldiers out of the battlefield, while others including victims of these drone strikes would more than frown upon the idea of taking a man’s (or men with the advanced explosives we have today) life from the comfort of a seat and a remote control. I’m invested into this topic because this, unlike the war effort against ISIS or the conflict on the Gaza strip, relates to science and the our future rather than focused primarily on politics. The possible doors these drone programs can open are limitless. For example, one day we might not even have to leave our homes to pick up groceries, instead you can fly your drone there. Unfortunately, another possibility can be the weaponization of these drones in regular society which could cause massive destruction. This is one of the many reasons why U.S. Drone Programs or just drones in general are controversial and I intend to analyze the rhetoric used to discuss this topic to find out which side presents the truth.
1) The Rhetorical Situation
Bitzer discusses rhetoric all together and poses the questions such as “What really is rhetoric?” Bitzer explains how a work is rhetoric due to its response to a certain situation. He gives the reader a situation with rhetoric, then he analyzes it explaining its effectiveness. Next to that, Bitzer describes exigence, audience, and constraints, the three characteristics of rhetoric and he discusses how each affect a situation and make it rhetorical. Bitzer finishes his argument with another set of statements that help portray his thoughts on why and how a situation is rhetorical.
I think Bitzer shows great understanding of rhetoric when it comes to arguments. He clearly describes how each situation uses it and then explain why it affects the readers so much. He explains the three characteristics so that any reader could develop an understanding of them. Bitzer seems like one who wants to educate audiences across the globe on his topic of choice.
Can the use of rhetoric sometimes be considered manipulation?
2) Emma Watson’s on Feminism
The exigence in Watson’s speech generally targets feminism and the mistreatment or inequality women face in today’s society. Emma’s direct audience was obviously the United Nations, but it was also meant for everyone around the world tuning in to her ideas. The constraints regarding her speech include anti-feminists and those who don’t take her seriously due to her profession.
The War on ISIS
I agree with the idea that the Aristotilean ideas are not far from each other. I believe each one contains a piece of the other but not enough so that it become one big idea of its own. They remind me of a venn-diagram, each of them have their similarities but also contain their differences. For example, each of them help manipulate decisions while each target a different center of the human mind whether it be the logical, emotional, or gut feeling.
Thank you for using Blogs@Baruch!
This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start publishing.
You are using a new WordPress theme that places widgets such as “Recent Posts,” “Recent Comments” and “Archives” in the footer, leaving you maximum space for publishing in this central area. If you prefer to have widgets on the right side of this page, these can be added by going to “Widgets” under the “Appearance” tab in your Dashboard. You can also choose from more than 100 other themes from the “Themes” menu in the Dashboard.