Close Reading 4

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2011/11/climate_change_and_extreme_weather_what_s_the_connection_.html

Peter A. Scott is discussing an increasingly politicized subject: Global Warming. Some background information is that some global warming supporters like Al Gore have been using natural disasters as evidence of global warming. This is probably to use fear to lure in supporters. 

Details: Peter A. Scott brings up the issue that that man could be influencing the odds of global warming, but we don't have enough information to know. He points out we have only had "about 40 years of reliable observational records" which is not exactly a ton of data. He mentions that when you look a severe flood, you need to look at “alternative natural explanations such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation, a large-scale climate pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide” not just global warming.

Language: Scott takes a rather passive tone in this article. He’s not trying to stir the pot and come up with some controversial theory. He is gently suggesting a potential change to help with deducing the connection between global warming and natural disasters. When talking about The Inconvenient Truth he doesn’t call it wrong, but instead says it’s “broadly accurate”, a euphemism. He does not offer any type of criticism of the movie. Scott also adds in another view rather peacefully with “A clearer way of thinking about weather and climate is to consider the odds”

Syntax: Scott likes to use short segments to highlight his points. In one paragraph talking about why it’s hard to make connections between natural disasters and man-made climate change, he starts it off with “But hurricanes are difficult”. In another paragraph talking about the future possibilities, he starts it with “Are we capable of delivering?”

Close reading 3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-lugar-the-unlikely-target-of-conservatives/2011/10/21/gIQA31om4L_story.html

In his article, George Will discusses the political vulnerability of Richard Lugar, a well-known senator from Indiana. He talks about how Richard Lugar, who despite having a strong resume, is a casualty of the times.

Richard Lugar has been a conservative for his entire political career. George Will enforces this with facts like when Ronald Reagan was president, "Lugar supported the president 88 percent of the time". He also cites that other prominent Republicans had supported some of the controversial votes Lugar has made during his career too. Adding to that, he points out the notable bills important to liberals Lugar has voted against such as: Obamacare, Cap and Trade, the stimulus, and Dodd-Frank.

Will later uses diction to describe why Lugar is vulnerable. He tries to portray Lugar as a sensible figure in a time of chaos. He talks about the "restless" energy of conservatives fueling a tough primary challenger. His use of the word restless carries a negative connotation, as of the conservatives were being rash. Will then describes Lugar with words like "courtliness and Midwest aversion to rhetorical flamboyance". Those carry positive connotations, and paint Lugar if he was rational and level headed.

The use of repition in this article is to signify importance. When Will talks about Lugar's credentials, he repeats who and the accomplishment to signify how accomplished Lugar has been. The repition of Yes, followed by a counterargument is used to help persuade the readers of Lugar's conservativeness.

I think overall George Will supports Lugar and how Lugar carries himself. But he realizes times have changed as the conservatives have shifted more to right. Will understands that it will not be Lugar's fault if he loses, but rather the environment he currently is in.

1

Close Reading 1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/why-primary-policy-fights-are-critical/2011/03/29/gIQAl3u1HK_blog.html#pagebreak
Recently, there was a Republican presidential debate in the Reagan Library. Tensions in this year's Republican nomination have been high, partly because of the polarizing politics in DC. Both Republican and Democrats hate each. As a result, it is imperative for the Republican Party to nominate a strong candidate to beat Barack Obama.

But there has been criticism on the point of the debate. Newt Gingrich argued that this only creating drama and dividing the GOP, when they should be focusing on their foe. Jennifer Rubin disagrees with this notion.

Rubin writes that debate helps find the best candidate, one who is a focused leader. She uses syntax well to help explain her argument. In her post, shorter sentences highlight her point. When she talks about reasons why people dislike primary debates, one of her sentences "But there is something else going on here as well." is relatively short. But it highlights that the fact there are multiple reasons why people don't want any more debates. Another one is "Indeed, Perry needs Romney and vice versa." which highlights the need for debate as it strengthens their public perception.

Words like "coddle" are used by Rubin to portray Perry supporters as overprotective parents. This uses of diction supporters her arguments because overprotective parents are regarded as obstacles. Another word, one of her own creation, is "punditocracy". She uses this word to portray political pundits as tyrants or too powerful, giving them a negative connotation.

Rubin also uses good command of language in this post. She uses repetition of a sentence format, " when a liberal does this, a republican does this". Also she uses repetition of the sentence format of "it and then a verb". She has "It tests...." followed by "It separates...." and then "It shows...." and finished with "And it keeps....". Rubin also uses an idiom "a broken clock is right twice a day" to illustrate the logic her conservative colleagues are using to defend their preferred candidate.

I too support debates. And now after this article I support it more than ever. I enjoyed the Republican candidates verbally sparring each other. The ones that can handle the attacks and still stand strong deserve to be in contention for President.