TOW #28: Why We Fight

Dwight D. Eisenhower left his presidency warning the people of the United States of a military-industrial complex. Though people may not have agreed with his actions in office, Eugene Jarecki the director of “Why We Fight” argues why the American citizens should have listened to his warning. This was evident following the attacks on the world trade center on September 11, 2001, when the United States entered into a war with Iraq. Jarecki uses his documentary to show the little relevance that the attacks on 9/11 and the Iraq War have in common. He uses expert/personal testimony as well as his own point of view to prove how America is now entered into a military-industrial complex that may be impossible to leave.

            Jarecki uses multiple expert and personal testimonies in “Why We Fight” to show the relevance that America’s military-industrial complex has on everyone. Jarecki begins by introducing all of the testimonies separately and then relating them all together at the end. One of the more prominent personal testimonies is from a father whose son was killed on the attack on the world trade center. This father describes the emotions that he felt and the desire for revenge that he sought. He found this revenge by placing his son’s name on one of the bombs that was dropped at the beginning of the Iraq War. From listening to other expert testimonies, the viewer learns the credibility of this revenge. It becomes clear as the video progresses from testimonies of CIA agents as well as members of the military that the motives to enter into the war in Iraq were not specifically because of the attacks on 9/11, but possibly because of other motives. It is revealed when all of the accounts collide that the war that the United States had entered was directly related to the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about and America’s confidence in its superiority. The connections of all of the testimonies at the end caused the revenge that the father of the 9/11 victim sought to be short-lived. He found out that those bombs killed many Iraqi civilians rather than targets, and he learned that the Iraq War was not related to the terrorists that performed the acts of 9/11. The testimonies performed the task of keeping the viewer interested, while informing the viewer about unknown truths about the Iraq War and its relation to the military-industrial complex..

            Jarecki also uses his own point of view to prove America’s ignorance towards Eisenhower’s warnings. It is clear in the documentary that Jarecki possesses a liberal point of view. He uses his point of view to form the argument of his film. He shows the other side of the argument, mostly conservative politicians, to prove how they are wrong. For example, he has a video of President Bush stating that the war in Iraq was not because of 9/11. This caused the other side’s arguments to be flawed because others argued that the war was because of the attacks on 9/11. By clearly showing his own point of view, it is difficult not to agree with him. After proving that the other side is flawed, it allows him to create the argument that the war was because of America’s military-industrial complex. Jarecki uses testimonies as well as his liberal point of view to prove that America is now in the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about.

TOW #27: TOW Reflection

            Major progression is evident in my TOWs from throughout the school year. From not including a thesis to not having transition sentences, my early TOWs lacked many of the necessary components of a good piece of writing. As my TOWs progressed, I am able to recognize where I became more comfortable with the necessary format and could then begin to focus on the analysis in my TOWs. After I became more comfortable with the analysis, I am able to see where I began to focus on word choice and other elements that would help bring my TOWs to the next level. I believe that the more that I became comfortable with writing throughout the school year, the better my TOWs became. I believe that from all of the practice I mastered the format in which I should use for the specific types of writing. Since I began the school year not knowing how to format a piece of writing correctly, I focused a lot of time in learning how to do so. From spending time in this area I was then able to become confident in the formatting aspect of writing and then work on the substance within my writing. This strategy enabled me to improve my writing substantially.

Though my writing has greatly improved this year, I believe that I could still strive to improve it more. I believe that my writing could use more style, as well as more intelligent diction that could raise my writing to the next level of sophistication. I also need to focus on limiting my repetition of words or phrases, so my essays are not repetitive. I believe that all of the TOWs throughout the year helped me escape and improve upon some of my bad writing habits because I could focus on eliminating them without being pressured for time like I am for in class essays. The extra time allowed me to focus directly on what I wanted to correct and take as long as it would take in order for me to do so. The TOWs also allowed me to practice analysis essays and work on finding the purpose of other essays throughout the year even though we moved on from them in class. This repetition throughout the year made it much easier to write the essays on the exam since we had been writing them all year. My progression in my TOWs shows the help that TOWs can provide when improvement is needed.

TOW #26: "Team Spirit", Adam Gopnik

Goals:

Good transition sentences

Strong analysis

Strong topic sentences

A major issue currently being debated is whether or not college athletes should be paid. Rather than taking a side of simply yes or no, Adam Gopnik, a writer for The New Yorker wrote “Team Spirit” to suggest solutions to the debate. In his essay, Gopnik asks rhetorical questions and uses comparisons to offer solutions to the growing question of whether student athletes should or should not be paid.

            To show the reader both sides of the argument, Gopnik asks rhetorical questions. In support of paying the student athletes Gopnik asks, “Nick Saban, the head coach at the University of Alabama, makes around seven million dollars a season; shouldn’t those who do the work share the wealth?” Many people would respond yes, but Gopnik uses this question to show why the student athletes should not be paid. He goes on to describe the ordeal that would follow if colleges began to pay their athletes. How much would a football player make compared to a woman track athlete? Should colleges only pay the athletes that play the sports that make the school the most money? By putting the problems that would follow into perspective for the reader, Gopnik is able to show why the solution to this debate is much more than a simple yes or no, and the many more problems that may arise if the decision is made to pay the athletes.

            After proving why it would be very difficult to decide to pay college athletes, Gopnik uses comparisons to provide a solution for the athletes that would like to be paid. Since the majority of the college athletes that are requesting to be paid are football and basketball players, Gopnik makes a connection to professional sports. He suggests the conclusion that the NFL and NBA should create minor league affiliations much like those of the MLB and NHL. Because baseball and hockey players have the ability to enter into a minor league program, they have the choice of whether to play their sport in college and gain an education, or play in the minors where they would make money. If the NFL and NBA were to create minor leagues, college athletes would no longer be asking for money, because the athletes that choose to play in college would make that decision for an education, and not for money. Gopnik’s comparison to the already existent MLB and NHL minor leagues allows him to come up with a solution that prevents student athletes from being paid.

            After the Northwestern football team was given the right to unionize by the Supreme Court, the conflict of whether or not student athletes should be paid stepped into the forefront. Adam Gopnik asks rhetorical questions and uses comparisons in his essay “Team Spirit”, to show why the athletes should not be paid and he offers a solution to the conflict. It is time to wait to see if Gopnik’s solution is put into effect.