Keeping Track of Technology

     In an age of faster, slimmer, and smarter technological devices, it seems as if the boundary between the technology of science fiction and spy movies and that of reality is shrinking.  As examined in The Economist article “Chips off the old block,” one current manifestation of improved technology is child-tracking devices.  Between smartphone tracking apps and programs and radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, the knowledge of a child’s whereabouts is now more accessible to parents than ever before.  Despite their benefits, however, the devices also pose dangerous consequences, for the programs can easily be used to provide information to mal-intentioned individuals, for instance, in cases of domestic violence. 

     This article began with an anecdote of a father walking his small son to the bus stop that was immediately relatable to for the audience (any person interested in current technological controversies).  The anecdote, however, ended with a less-relatable twist; that the father could also use a robot, linked to a beacon in the boy’s backpack, and/or a video-streaming smartphone to ensure his son made it onto the bus.  This story quickly hooked the audience and caused them to question where the story could possibly be leading.  It appealed enough to the audience’s cultural memory to allow them to make associations between technology they were familiar with from science fiction movies and that mentioned in the story, subsequently conjuring up images of robots and drones at a typical bus stop scene in their heads.  This highlights the anecdote’s employment of hyperbole in explaining the father’s ability to use “a football-sized drone, hovering several meters off the ground” (53) to track his son. 

     Nevertheless, the anecdote created a smooth transition to many existing tracking devices and places where they are used, which in turn shifted to a discussion of potential problems with the devices.  These possible misuses include eavesdropping capabilities and thus decreased privacy, and using the devices to track spouses in addition to children.  A “They say, I say” argument became evident in this section of the article, as the author effectively used what “Critics say” (53), what “Some survivors of domestic violence say” (54), and what “Others fear” (54) to explain the aforementioned reservations with the technologies.  At the same time, the author was able to make their own stance appear neutral for the audience, enhancing the article’s apparent objectivity and credibility (ethos). 

     As technology continues to expand into various facets of life, so do the controversies associated with its usage.  This article explored fairly objectively one such controversy, and thus does fulfill its purpose of informing readers of the benefits and drawbacks of current child-tracking devices.

Rebuilding Violent Places

     The buildings and environments in which people spend their time have striking effects on the emotions, memories, and recollections people establish with these places, both good and bad.  New Yorker correspondent Thomas de Monchaux explores these connections in the architectural context of rebuilding environments scarred by gun violence in an article entitled “Rebuilding Violent Places.”  He does this through examining the Oslo design firm, Fantastic Norway, responsible for rebuilding the Labor Youth Party summer camp on Utoya Island in Norway after July 2011 shootings.  De Monchaux stresses the quandaries associated with these architectural undertakings between wanting to start afresh but conversely leave some indications of what happened, so people do not forget.

     The article opens with several anecdotes that briefly outline places of recent gun violence, beginning with the 2006 Amish school shooting and progressing to the recent Sandy Hook shooting.  This overview reveals the scope of gun violence and thus the many repercussions this violence creates, putting the need for design firms like Fantastic Norway into context.  While the progression of the dates of these examples (2006 to 2012, 2007 to 2013) is not in exact chronological order, the repeating pattern of past to more recent helps to portray the shootings as cyclical happenings. 

     The anecdotes additionally appeal to the audience’s cultural memories of gun violence by bringing negative emotions of violence to the surface.  However, de Monchaux also adds to these memories by including the rebuilding process of shooting environments in his descriptions.  These descriptions are enriched through assonance, used by de Monchaux to describe the footprints of the twin towers as “...inviolately unbuildable in perpetuity—an act of polemical and political remembering,” (2).  The stressed ih sound in the words inviolately unbuildable in perpetuity, coupled with the ol, ic and al sounds in polemical and political, enhance his delivery by creating flow and cadence within his words.

     All of the small associations and connections that de Monchaux establishes with the audience help his points about creation in places marked by violence to be remembered.  The article seems to be directed towards a worldwide audience curious about architecture and how it influences sensations.  As a result, de Monchaux does successfully accomplish his purpose and leaves the reader pondering the future of “violent places” long after they finish the article.

The Injustices of Racial Entitlement

Brian McFadden's New York Times cartoon.  The cartoon can also be accessed here.

     During this past Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing about The Voting Rights Act of 1965, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia attempted to argue that the South had surpassed the need for the law.  Scalia explained how the tremendous support the law received when it was up for reauthorization in 2006 could be attributed to “the perpetuation of racial entitlement,” as opposed to overwhelming support for the law.  In a New York Times Sunday Review strip cartoon, New York Times cartoonist Brian McFadden satirizes Scalia’s comment by revealing the many ways in which minority voters actually do have an unfair number of racial entitlements (compared to white voters).  The most striking device employed in this cartoon was humor, which effectively appealed to the audience and helped McFadden to make his point clear. 

     McFadden effectively expands upon Scalia’s ludicrous quote by using sarcasm to reinforce the racial entitlements given to minority voters.  Of course, McFadden means the opposite of what he says when he explains how minorities are granted more democracy because they can vote for longer periods of time; how their voting districts are gerrymandered for them; and how they are entitled to significantly more police attention than other people.  Twisting well known instances that actually verify continued racism towards minorities increases the contrast between what McFadden is saying and what he means, in turn strengthening his points.  This technique also employs cultural memory, as it forces the audience to subconsciously access what they know about the history of voting rights in America and the proliferation of racist and/or stereotypical comments in American media to subsequently increase their understanding of the cartoon.  Finally, the drawing style effectively mirrors the point of the cartoon.  The initial scene, showing Scalia reading a revised Huckleberry Finn to an audience of pastel-colored animals, sardonically mocks the not-so-light-and-fluffy issue of racial injustice.  In addition, the pictures heighten the ridiculousness of Scalia’s comment, as it portrays his real audience as animals, not people.

     This effective combination of words and images appeals well to McFadden’s audience of minority and liberal Americans, who would probably find the cartoon funny and valid.  It would also leave an impression on his audience of particularly conservative Americans, the viewpoints of whom the cartoon is expressly ridiculing.  Overall, the cartoon does fulfill its purpose of responding to an extreme comment in a humorous and memorable way.