SCAVENGER HUNT

Propaganda types:
These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason.

•  Card stacking:technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion
• 
  

Word games

Name-calling: 

to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. 

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=NY_NYP&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=MA_SC&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=GA_SMN&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=CA_LAT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Glittering generalities: employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_LEP&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=WA_TH&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Euphemisms: try to obscure the meaning of what is being talked about by replacing plain English with deliberately vague jargon

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=FL_TIMES&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=IRL_IT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

False connection 

Transfer:to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols 

•  http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=NY_ND&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Testimonial: is a specific type of transfer device in which admired individuals give their endorsement to an idea, product, or cause

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=FL_TIMES&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Special Appeals

Plain Folks:convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart

• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TG&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=FL_TIMES&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=GA_SMN&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

Bandwagon:  technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd

• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=CA_TR&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=WY_WTE&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=USA

Fear: is a device that attempts to reach you at the level of one of your most primitive and compelling emotions

• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_LEP&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe
• http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/pop_up.asp?fpVname=UK_TT&ref_pge=map&tfp_map=Europe

Reflection

Why there is still debate…

The expectations weren’t set, which lead to a confusion in how to present the oral. The requirements were to watch our given videos, take appropriate notes, and find external sources to support or counter various arguments and later on in form of a forum or discussion present the information to the class.

Here is the first step to a better understanding and meeting the outcome, question what a forum is. Katie and me weren’t quite sure what a forum is or had a different understanding than what it actually is. Since both of us had watched both our videos but each had a greater focus on either one or two, we knew our topic and what we were talking about very well. Therefore our idea was to talk about the main arguments of our videos, which we though was most efficient to bring the main idea across. There are various definition for what a forum is, the one that should have been applied to this discussion is, loud Merriam Webmaster: “a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion/ a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities”[1].

Furthermore as a better preparation and make the discussion flow, I should have had a meeting with my partner to discuss the outline of our discussion so we are able to talk back and forth. This would create a more controversy aura while informing the class about why there is still debate about global warming/climate change/destabilization, what ever you might call it, but that’s another point of discussion. The best way to have that done is by listing our arguments, finding the linkages and then create an outline, which can then be brought more into depth by adding the appropriate detail, evidence and external sources as required.

As being the first ones, not that this is a direct excuse, but Katie and me weren’t quite sure what to expect and how to handle it. We kind of had an idea of how our “discussion” should look like, but we hadn’t practiced it before, which could have been a good idea, therefore in the classroom there wouldn’t be any surprises. For example how to end the discussion, maybe with a resolution or a summary of all the arguments and how that leads to a conclusion. Our ending was more left open and if we had developed it more, there would have been a clear ending.

During the forum, I was kind of nervous and therefore forgot to mention different points, which happens to me often. I had stated the main arguments but supporting evidence to make it more credible or the linkages between the arguments was missing. Especially in the beginning I was kind of jumping around from one point to another which then settled towards the end. If we had a discussion, as Katie saying something then me, this would have limited it because I’d have focused just on arguments but not about the other people around me.

Through this activity I learned how to improve or actually have a forum between other students and me. Also that citing the external sources is very important to bring the credibility and reliability across. This made me aware that more sources give you more evidence and show which ones involve bias and which ones are not. To hold a forum you need to know your arguments and have a clear understanding of the outline, of course changes can be made through out incase new ideas arise. But the main flaws of our presentation is, not knowing what the requirements of a forum are and not having a meeting with my partner to precisely discuss a timeline of why there is still debate.

---

[1] Definition of Forum, Merriam Webmaster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum

External Sources

• http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html
• for: republicas against change

Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?

Not anymore. With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it. Instead of McCain — who has walked back his own climate-policy realism since the 2008 elections — we have Texas Governor Rick Perry, who told voters in New Hampshire over the weekend that "I don't believe manmade global warming is settled in science enough." And many Republicans agree with him: the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering yes to the question of whether the effects of global warming were already being felt fell to 30% or less in 2010, down from 50% in 2007-08. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats remained around 70% or more.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html#ixzz1urhWLyHi

• http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/

What Causes Global Warming?

Scientists have spent decades figuring out what is causing global warming. They've looked at the natural cycles and events that are known to influence climate. But the amount and pattern of warming that's been measured can't be explained by these factors alone. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans.

To bring all this information together, the United Nations formed a group of scientists called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC meets every few years to review the latest scientific findings and write a report summarizing all that is known about global warming. Each report represents a consensus, or agreement, among hundreds of leading scientists.

One of the first things scientists learned is that there are several greenhouse gases responsible for warming, and humans emit them in a variety of ways. Most come from the combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories and electricity production. The gas responsible for the most warming is carbon dioxide, also called CO2. Other contributors include methane released from landfills and agriculture (especially from the digestive systems of grazing animals), nitrous oxide from fertilizers, gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes, and the loss of forests that would otherwise store CO2.

....

In order to understand the effects of all the gases together, scientists tend to talk about all greenhouse gases in terms of the equivalent amount of CO2. Since 1990, yearly emissions have gone up by about 6 billion metric tons of "carbon dioxide equivalent" worldwide, more than a 20 percent increase.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers

Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty

Mann became a target of climate deniers' hate because his research revealed there has been a recent increase of almost 1°C across the globe, a rise that was unprecedented "during at least the last 1,000 years" and which has been linked to rising emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants. Many other studies have since supported this finding although climate change deniers still reject his conclusions.

Mann's research particularly infuriated deniers after it was used prominently by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in one of its assessment reports, making him a target of right-wing denial campaigners. But as the 46-year-old scientist told theObserver, he only entered this research field by accident. "I was interested in variations in temperatures of the oceans over the past millennium. But there are no records of these changes so I had to find proxy measures: coral growth, ice cores and tree rings."

By studying these he could trace temperature fluctuations over the past 1,000 years, he realised. The result was a graph that showed small oscillations in temperature over that period until, about 150 years ago, there was a sudden jump, a clear indication that human activities were likely to be involved. A colleague suggested the graph looked like a hockey stick and the name stuck. The results of the study were published in Nature in 1998. Mann's life changed for ever.

"The trouble is that the hockey stick graph become an icon and deniers reckoned if they could smash the icon, the whole concept of global warming would be destroyed with it. Bring down Mike Mann and we can bring down the IPCC, they reckoned. It is a classic technique for the deniers' movement, I have discovered, and I don't mean only those who reject the idea of global warming but those who insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer or that industrial pollution isn't linked to acid rain."

.....

In addition, Mann has been attacked by Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican attorney general of Virginia who has campaigned to have the scientist stripped of academic credentials. Several committees of inquiry have investigated Mann's work. All have exonerated him.
.....

 the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them."

"Words like those give me hope," says Mann.

• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-behind-climate-change

The Physical Science behind Climate Change

For a scientist studying climate change, “eureka” moments are unusually rare. Instead progress is generally made by a painstaking piecing together of evidence from every new temperature measurement, satellite sounding or climate-model experiment. Data get checked and rechecked, ideas tested over and over again. Do the observations fit the predicted changes? Could there be some alternative explanation? Good climate scientists, like all good scientists, want to ensure that the highest standards of proof apply to everything they discover.

And the evidence of change has mounted as climate records have grown longer, as our understanding of the climate system has improved and as climate models have become ever more reliable. Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater certainty across the scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future. This increased certainty is starkly reflected in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the fourth in a series of assessments of the state of knowledge on the topic, written and reviewed by hundreds of scientists worldwide.

The physical science assessment focuses on four topics: drivers of climate change, changes observed in the climate system, understanding cause-and-effect relationships, and projection of future changes. Important advances in research into all these areas have occurred since the IPCC assessment in 2001. In the pages that follow, we lay out the key findings that document the extent of change and that point to the unavoidable conclusion that human activity is driving it.

....

Why is there still debate?

Video 1:

• different opinions are the reason why there is still debate
• lack of absolute uncertainty 
• every statement in science: acknowledgment with an uncertainty --> very explicit 
• controversy in good (firm's like it) 
• other side created illusion to seem like both side are equal -NOT 
• public opinion can be easily manipulated, because scientists complex it all and they don't notice where it comes from it 
• "society knows now, that there is enough risk to be taken
• risk.com
• "we are all seekers for the truth here" 
• look at same evidence, come to different conclusions
• climate change so interesting 

Video 2: 

• resist conclusion because they are afraid of it 
• scare tatics: fail criticism 
• credibility is destroyed 
• human brain responds to threats that are immediate, quick, visible and personal
• no where to go to, the world is already flooded with people, if we face struggle
• people ignore problems in hope it goes away, therefore they don't take action 
• confirmation bias : 
• more attention to evidence that support believe than evidence that's against the own belief
• Political belief: what is physically real 
• Example: both look out the same window 
• republicans 
• dark, rainy 
• greater distaste of government than democrats 
• when there is the believe or evidence that through human actions the global change is happening, republicans don't want to help, don't want to see it happen
• democrats 
• blue and shiny 

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of AMBIGUITY 

Definition:
incorrect reasoning through imprecise use of language 
An ambiguousword, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses.


Examples: 
- she sees more of her children than her husband. 
- Really exciting novels are rare. But rare books are expesive. Therefore, really exciting novels are expensive.
- 

Shakespeare used this more than once in his plays:

9. The Duke yet lives that Henry shall depose. (Henry VI, Part II; Act 1, Scene 4)

10. Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn the power of man, for none of woman born shall harm Macbeth. (Macbeth; Act 4, Scene 1)

Both of these predictions are ambiguous. In the first, it is unclear if there lives a duke whom Henry shall depose, or if there lives a duke who shall depose Henry. This ambiguity is caused by unclear grammar. The second example is the result of ambiguous terminology: Macbeth's enemy Macduff had been born by Caesarian section - "ripped untimely from his mother's womb" - and thus was not "of woman born" in the normal sense.

-

 Last night I caught a prowler in my pyjamas.

ESSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAY

Solidarity with the dispossessed or outcast can often provide writers with material that moves or provokes. In what ways have at least two writers you have studied used such situations? 

Solidarity. A unity of a group or class with the same interests, objectives and standards. But what happens when one breaks out? Two novels that include such phenomena are the Assault and the White Tiger. You have to look behind the scenes to understand the solidarity within these two books, and how an outcast creates as well as catharsis but also provocation. What does it take to be an outcast? From the dark coming into the light through illegal action or being caught in the past, when there is no way out but the truth and everyone around you moves on.

“In any jungle, what is the rarest of animals- the creature that comes along only once in a generation? I thought about it and said “The white tiger”(30). From the beginning on through out the whole book this is a recurring symbol, a motif. It ties into the theme of I am a social entrepreneur, which carries out thought the whole book and demonstrates the outcast of an Indian entrepreneur, Balram. He brought himself several times out of the standards, but breaking out of the darkness also known as the Rooster Coop into the Light, was an achievement and his life goal. Not a lot have the opportunity and courage as him to make the final move, which made him so special.

“Deep inside the tunnel of the past…”(108). Being different than all the others. Trying to avoid, what he wants to know. Doesn’t that seem a little paradoxical? In the Assault Anton’s life turned out to be different than expected, the whole assault, not even with the intension to hurt his family, messed up his life. Anton is stuck in the past, and hardly moves on. Everyone involved has left the past, but Anton can’t let go, even though he tried to avoid it as much as he can. Fate is his enemy that keeps on trapping him and giving him more than he wants. This creates catharsis for the character, as he has lost everything but doesn’t have the knowledge to carry on, but his whole mind is set to avoid it.

The time matters. Solve the past to move on, look into the future to reach. Both novels are episodic divided. The assault goes by important events in Dutch history while the White Tiger refers back to important events in Balram’s life set into seven letters to the Premier of China, each beginning and ending of the chapters goes into present. Especially in the White Tiger, it is the odd in the solidarity. The whole book focuses on his career paths, but skips in between to his actual life. In someway it brings one always back into the real time, but also provokes the reader because they want to keep on reading. This is a different type of outcast, which involves the structure of the writing style. In the Assault this in not a very dominant, but in every chapter Anton learns more about fate.

One way or the other, the truth is always the best. Anton learned through fate the truth about the past. "Anton caught the following sentence: I shot him first in the back, then in the shoulder, and then in the stomach as I bicycled past him." (p.108) Just by coincidence does he find out the initial cause of the death of his family. All his life he wants to avoid it. “A victim? Of course…yet at the same time, he felt as it had all happened to someone else.”(112), because Anton is so desperately involved with the idea of avoiding the past, even though he knows he’s been the victim, it all seems unrealistic. Anton is the outcast, of the story. The whole assault made him change his lifestyle, and chase after a girl that mostly likely was already dead long ago.  When slowly starting to find out the whole story, he slowly starts coming out of the tunnel of the past to the light. This is a reversed relationship, from being an outcast coming back to solidarity, when it’s usually being part of it and breaking out or being pushed out.

India, a country with two faces. The dark and the light, but nothing in between. Through corruption Balram comes from the darkness into the light. “Can a man break out of the Rooster Coop?... it would, in fact, take a white tiger. You are listening to a story of a social entrepreneur, sir.”(176-177). Back to the social entrepreneur, the murder was his ticket to the light of India. Balram was one of few who took courage to kill his master, gain his power to make it up to his own world. No guilt, but in fact responsibility did he feel after committing the crime. They say “the rooster coop is guarded from inside”(193) but once the guard is killed, Balram found his way out. It also shows that being an outcast, does not always have to be bad for the psychology of someone, here becoming one, the desperation to join the light is immense disturbing for Balram. But was it right to take a life to enjoy ones own?

A loss of family “all because of some lizards”(184). Was it right to move the body to save some lizards and have a whole family killed instead? We all move one, what makes one an outcast? Being different. Anton chose to live his life, avoiding the past, but it didn’t work. In his mind he had an image of a woman he never saw, but talked to, striving to meet her, what he didn’t consciously know was that she was already dead. That the lizards were the reason was not found out until the end that makes it so provoking that the character itself doesn’t want to find out but his readers. But the loss of his family created such a huge amount of catharsis that it weights itself out, and the conclusion at the end, is rather an open discussion. Lizards or Family Steenwijk?

Lack of health care, family loyalty, master’s pressure, no education, political problems, corruption and no structure, the life of Balram. Though spying at teashops, where he worked, he builds up his own education, through which he ends up his master, leaving the family behind. Serveral times does Balram become an outcast, for example leaving his family, stepping out of the circle, or moving out his village, not becoming a rickshaw puller, but a driver. Mainly and most importantly coming into the light was his way out of the circle. Being an entrepreneur, having too much money, causing corruption, leading an own company, the life of Balram now.

Every story has its climax. I’m a social entrepreneur or inside the tunnel of the past. Every individual character can create tension in a novel that provokes or moves. The White Tiger has shown what it takes to break out of the solidarity while in the Assault Anton’s consciences with fate have shown that even avoiding something, here the past, it will eventually catch you. He has moved out of solidarity in a provoking way but eventually the author gave him back a normal life, and fixing the last puzzle, which could have been solved years ago, but without it Anton would still have been in a paradoxical situation. Balram lives a life without regret, because he thinks that he just continues the life of his master. That it is his responsibility, giving the impression that his life wasn’t worth it. Moving or provocation?

Essay outline

Solidarity with the dispossessed or outcast can often provide writers with material that moves or provokes. In what ways have at least two writers you have studied used such situations? 


Intro:

• books: white tiger and the assault 
• what is solidarity, outcast  
• 2 solidarities in the book: the darkness through murder comes into the light, caught in the past, yet avoiding it 

Paragraph 1:

• "In any jungle, what is the rarest of animals - the creature that comes along only once in a generation?' I though about it and said 'The white tiger."
• Balram being an outcast- something special: through out the whole story
• compared to Anton being stuck in the past, hardly moves on 

Paragraph 2: 

• writing style: episodic both 
• WT: important events in balram's life + 7 letters to premier 
• always comes back to present, beginning end of each chapter - outcast 
• A: important events in dutch history (5) 
• learns more about the past by fate

Paragraph 3: 

• through fate Anton come out of the tunnel of past to light
• • "Anton caught the following sentence: I shot him first in the back, then in the shoulder, and then in the stomach as I bicycled past him." (p.108)
• through corruption Balram comes from the darkness into the light 
• murder a man, and you feel responsible for his life...murder a man, and you feel responsible for his life (46)

Paragraph 4: 

• WT: solidarity the darkness- breaking out of it
• the rooster coop is guarded from inside ( 193) 
• can a man break out of the rooster coop? .. it would, in fact, take a white tiger. you are listening to a story of a social entrepreneur, sir. (176-177) 
• A: Solidarity normal life of family 
• the assault brings Anton into the odds, life switches 
• even though he tries to avoid it as much as possible, he get to know the whole story 

Paragraph 5:

• WT: being in the darkness created catharsis within the reader's mind 
• all of the sudden all lost through murder: provokes the reader 
• but then it's all for good at the end, leaves an ethical problem: was is right or not ?
• A: loss of family creates huge amount of catharsis 
• but not wanting to find out what happened is provoking 
• at the end it all comes to conclusion 

Paragraph 6: 

• WT: I am a social entrepreneur/ "Please understand Your Excellency, that India is two countries in one: an India of light and an India of darkness.
• A: deep inside the tunnel of past/ all because of some lizards

Paragraph 7: 

• WT
• A 

Conclusion: 

• part of group or individual: tension that provokes or moves 
• WT: has shown what it takes to break of out the solidarity of the dark 
• A: has shown that even with avoiding the past, eventually it will catch you