GasLand: Unit 5 Essential Questions

GasLand. Dir. Josh Fox. Perf. Josh Fox. New Video Group, 2010. DVD.

One of filmmaker Josh Fox's claims in his documentary GasLand is that American corporations and politicians are so fueled by their lust of profits that they are ignorant of the fact that they are causing the polluting of thousands of Americans' drinking water, leading to serious health issues. Fox is absolutely correct in questioning the policies of oil and gas companies toward the health of the citizens near gas rigs.

Weston Wilson, the whistleblower working at EPA that Fox interviewed, is very insightful when stating "all science and data stopped" after Bush passed his energy policy act in 2005. Also, he claims that the responsibility is on the gas industries to prove to the government that their drilling policies are not harmful to the environment or especially to the people living there. Wilson often brings up the point that these agreements of buying land and injecting chemicals are in complete secrecy and without consulting with the EPA, thanks to exploiting the Halliburton loophole back in 2005. Therefore, oil and gas companies have continuously passed the buck or completely ignored the obvious link between fracking and intermingling of fracking fluids and drinking water, as well as the air pollutants from the gas rigs. However, wouldn't it be up to the government to regulate these business practices through heavy investigation and the closing of loopholes? 

"What [Fox has] been picking up from these citizens is what we should be investigating, but we're not.  We're still asleep at the wheel... [The citizens] don't deserve to be exposed to secret chemicals. It's un-American...this may be a pattern repeating itself, but so far, we're on duty" 

--Weston Wilson, EPA employee

Unit 5 Essential Questions:

How do modern modes of communication affect the rhetorical devices individuals have at their disposal?

The modern documentary has allowed filmmakers to take action on issues that they see are crucial. In addition, it opens up a new world of rhetorical possibilities to use on their audience. For example, Josh Fox changes the mood in GasLand through transitional segments within the documentary, including cartoons back by cheerful music, stock footage, and analysis of government documents. This sets the mood away from one argument (or way of portraying an argument) to another without confusing the audience. This possibility is only available through the modern form of documentary.

How have modern modes of communication been perceived and received by the global community?

The modern documentary has reached out to millions of people, seeing that the message can now be shared through TV, movies, the Internet, and other forms of communication, all around the world. It is perceived in many ways, based on the individual's existing knowledge, location, or bias on the subject. For example, Fox shows maps of the potential drilling areas in GasLand, leading people who live in those large areas to feel concerned, and therefore receiving the idea more efficiently. Also, Fox paints a picture of Dick Cheney as a heartless, ignorant politician who only cares about cheap energy, even if it makes citizens' drinking water unhealthy. Some of the audience who already have bias toward Cheney might feel more comfortable with the message.

GasLand: Rhetorical Analysis

GasLand. Dir. Josh Fox. Perf. Josh Fox. New Video Group, 2010. DVD.
This documentary is an exploration into the harmful effects of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the United States. Josh Fox, a rural Pennsylvania resident, was appalled when looking in to the activities of various oil and gas companies all throughout the countries and decided to research the potential environmental disasters in Pennsylvania by traveling all around Colorado, Wyoming, Arkansas, Texas, and other states in which the dangers of fracking have appeared. He discovers many loopholes in government documents such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act that companies have greatly exploited in the past 10 years.

Fox's structure of his documentary is by far the most effective strategy used in GasLand. He starts by describing his home in Pennsylvania, which is on land that oil and gas companies want for gas production. After Fox first becomes active on the issue of fracking, he moves to a wider lens, exploring the closest drilling sites to his home and interviewing residents with contaminated water. Next, he travels to the west, where fracking first began, examining the long-term effects of drilling through powerful interviews with residents and research into studies, statistics and documents. Later, he has (or tries to have) interviews with company representatives, local officials, and community leaders. Finally, Fox ends with a blatant call to action from the public to rise against the dangers of oil and gas companies' fracking by asking questions on the outcomes of potential fracking in his home state and community.

Also, the director established his credibility at the beginning of the film by introducing himself as a selfless citizen who wants to protect his community as well as everyone's homes from fracking through various methods. Many of the shots of the camera pointing through a window give the audience something to relate to, since almost everyone in the country has looked out of a window of a car rolling down the road before. In addition, the scenes that include Josh attempting to call oil companies and constantly being transferred further connect with the audience. Out of all, one powerful line in the film drew my attention specifically: when Josh was asking for an interview with a company executive, someone on the phone asked who the documentary would be for. When Josh answered "the general public," he made it seem like the companies were completely turned off, leading into one failed attempt at an interview after another.

TOW Reflection: Two Presidents, Bill Clinton Speech (re-write), Calvin Hobbes

    Over this long, challenging year, I have learned about my personal writing style, identified several points of improvement, and followed through improving many of them very well. I remember Mr. Yost saying some time during the year that the primary purpose of this course is to develop the real-life skills of advanced reading and writing, which has been the purpose of numerous in-class assignments, group projects, the AP exam, and, of course, these TOW analyses. Therefore, I would like to take some time to observe my beneficial development in these posts to track my progress that will forever contribute to my talents as a reader and writer.
    My three TOW assignments that I will be analyzing are each from a consecutive marking period: Two Presidents, Smoking and Scheming; Bill Clinton's Speech at Montco; and the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, "You Need a Lobotomy." Each of these posts highlighted a spotlight of development, taught me something about my writing, and show improvement from earlier posts. Overall, the lesson that Smoking and Scheming taught me was to pick a topic that I want to write about, especially when you have the freedom to do so. This was the first time I used that freedom in these essays. Next, Bill Clinton's Speech at Montco was more of a traditional way of improving my writing in the middle of the year. My editor, Dave K, helped me mold arguments into my writing and introduced me to new ways of organizing my ideas and improving my writing. This is easily seen in my re-write, which is by far my most in-depth and advanced TOW of the year. Lastly, I dug deeper into my childhood by using these TOWs as a time trip with Calvin and Hobbes. This was my favorite TOW out of all to write because I had a personal connection with the topic, which made my argument stronger through extensive articulation of my memories into the TOW.
     With the help of these TOWs, I have undoubtedly mastered "putting myself" into the essay and making this evident to the reader, further establishing my credibility. Now I can read almost any piece of writing and somehow build a connection and analyze the piece. Even though I have made drastic strides in organizing my ideas in an effective way, I still find myself trying to fit them into a traditional manner. Therefore, the greatest aspect of my writing to work on in the future is to work the structure and organization of my argument to make it more effective and less "boring."
   

NY Times: The Idled Young Americans

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/sunday-review/the-idled-young-americans.html?ref=opinion

This article highlights the little discussed fact that over the past 10 years, the United States has become the highest unemployment rate for citizens between the ages of 25-34 among the top economic countries. It starts off with a meaningful cartoon depicting college students leaving their campus and going straight to the unemployment office. Next, it elaborates on to the discrepancy between the county's modest economic recovery -- even better than most European countries -- and our weak growth in jobs for young adults. However, the article does add that that statistic does include post-bachelor education and young adults caring for children. Nonetheless, they are still a significantly poor numbers. The article ends with a few suggestions toward this recovery, most of them involving government support in fields that seem "unprofitable" and not monetarily useful, and a word of optimism.

Strangely enough, the author's credibility is established immediately after the article itself, stating "David Leonhardt is the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times." Leonhardt's successful strategies to reach his ideas out to the audience include his use of statistic contrast and an objective view of the problem and solution. For example, two graphs on the side show how America has lost its lead in employment among young adults and forms a connection to what other countries have done on this issue. Also, Leonhardt offers suggestions for fixing this situation without bashing someone else's opinion as well as speculates how this problem arose in the first place.

HuffPost: Senators Lose Support After Gun Control Vote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/gun-background-checks-poll_n_3177865.html

After the recent voting down of background checks in Washington this week, many Americans were aggravated with Congress's supposed representation of the American people. After all, when 90% of Americans support an idea, yet it is not made into law, one could expect this aggravation. This Huffington Post article and video reinforces this concept, headlining that five senators have had their approval ratings slide significantly after voting against the large majority of Americans.

The tone of the article and video is very clear and almost condescending toward the senators and lawmakers that disagree with the American public. While listening to the newswoman's voice and reading the article, one can easily picture a chiding finger pointed at these Republican senators. Also, to balance out this tone, the video in particular brings up a counterargument claiming that one senator's approval ratings in particular might have dropped because of other policies, such as immigration policy. 

The Fuel of the Future -- The Economist April 2013

This article, published in The Economist for the week of 4/6/13, discusses a "new, carbon-neutral" fuel called biomass, though some might refer to the source as its more-common name, wood. Although wood may not be widely known as a carbon-neutral source of energy, it certainly is possible with proper reforestation policies in place. In fact, many European countries -- including Germany, one of the most prominent countries in terms of energy reform -- are making moves toward a heavier reliance on biomass with new subsidies and importing measures. After further analysis, the article finally claims that wood is inefficient in fighting the carbon battle for 100 years, even surpassing coal as the dirtiest resource for several years of its first applications as fuel.

The author of this article is clever at first grabbing the attention of its audience flipping through the pages of The Economist through the irony of a picture of a caveman lighting a fire and the headline: The Fuel of the Future. In addition, the article's first paragraph asks a couple questions about renewable energy, leaving the reader wanting to know the answer. Furthermore, it answers the question with wood, a source that is rarely ever thought as a "future-like" energy source.

The article continues by detailing countries' advancement of their "biomass" subsidies and importation of "biomass", clearly a more dependable word than "wood." Also, the author builds up to the underlying question in the reader's mind: "But is it efficient?" The article answers the question directly: no. This climax finally resolves the reader's newly opened mind on the subject of using wood as a major carbon-neutral source.

Calvin and Hobbes: "You Need a Lobotomy"

http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2912173/calvinhobbes

   This is one of the most satirical and classic Calvin and Hobbes strips I remember growing up with. In this cartoon, Calvin and Susie are playing a game involving a doctor and a patient when they start getting in an argument about where the game is going. Then the pretending starts to collapse when the two finally march away from each other in anger. It is a beautiful expression of youth and brings upon a  thoroughly accurate representation of childhood while reading and looking at the cartoon. On top of it all is a great sense of nostalgic humor.
   The first prominent rhetorical device that the author uses is the mood of the drawings. As mentioned in the brief quote from author Bill Waterson below, the dramatic angles and pictures alluding to soap operas are funny enough when they're real, so there was not much effort needed to parody the concept. More specifically, the timing of the drawings shifting from unfamiliar faces to the classical C&H style is so perfect because one can picture two children fighting while reading the dialogue beforehand, yet the pictures are still of adults and include those "dramatic angles" mentioned earlier. Next, the cartoonist uses the classic, witty ending by Calvin when he says, "the Surgeon General should issue a warning about playing with girls." Like almost all other C&H strips, it shows off his sophisticated, humorous vocabulary for his age as well as uses Hobbes as Calvin's more mature yet clever counterpart.