Setting aside all the protests and mixed sentiments, Meg Lanker looks at the connection between campaign contributions and why Obama hasn't really acted upon the Occupy Wallstreet movement.
Lanker starts her article off by quoting Obama's statement on how "the people of Egypt have rights that are universal....including the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny.(Obama) " She then points out how ironic it is that he "will stand up for them everywhere (Obama)," while he should be caring about his own nation at home facing similar issues with police brutality and suppression of specific rights.
At both the start and finish, Lanker's language does not convey high approval of Mr.Obama. Her language is especially effective as she incorporates varying syntax, specifically short to-the-point statements. After she asks whether it is"a radical statement to say the president should have issued [that statement] long-ago, (Lanker)" she quickly answers it with a harsh "because he hasn’t (Lanker)." Clearly she is unhappy about the the lack of action on our president's part, and does not bother to hide it.
In her concluding paragraphs, she bluntly summarizes what Obama said, that we're "essentially... supposed to support democratic movements elsewhere, not here at home" and "God forbid [we] actually participate" (Lanker). Her language taunts our president, and then she closes everything with "Gotcha," a quick syntactical zinger.
Between her introduction and conclusion, she drowns us with detail. Giving us staggering numerical values on how much huge financial monsters such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase have contributed heavily to Obama's presidential campaign, we can see why Obama maybe hasn't taken action. Instead of just criticizing our nation's president, she presents these details so that we can form opinions on our own.
I think when you typed this, the font color changed from white to dark gray midway through, and it is now difficult to read unless you copy and paste it into Word. Just a heads up, may want to fix that.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the piece, you did an excellent job of identifying language, syntax and details. You did well to provide specific examples of each through your extensive use of direct quotation.
The main issue I have with the piece is it's organization. Usually, I try to organize my three aspects of DIDLS into three separate paragraphs. However, in your piece, Language and Syntax were at times intermixed, and I'm not sure if you hit enough on Language. Details, however, was very well done.
You kind of address this throughout your response, but maybe explicitly stating that the authors techniques convey Obama in a negative light would be a good idea to add onto the end.
Overall, a good job.
So. Font color... I like it. It poses a challenge for me, you know, makes things interesting.
ReplyDeleteMoving on. I enjoyed reading this Close Reading. As always you have excellent flow with you work, more so than most others. While at times it is harder to figure out what you are picking at, it isn't impossible. In fact, it makes the entry more natural in a way, rather than simply confined to paragraphs and a formula.