Taxes, Poor People, and the rhetoric of the animal

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Context: Here, John Stewart is criticizing conservatives claim that raising the taxes on the rich would not help balance the budget.

1.) He shows how conservatives contradict themselves when they say that "we have to start somewhere" (meaning cutting programs), but say that raising taxes on the rich will not produce enough revenue to help the budget.  "When its cuts its a million dollars, but when its taxed its 700,000,000 milion dollars. . ."  

2.) Rather than taxing the rich, the conservatives argue that we should consider that "51%" of Americans pay nothing at all. The solution: we should "broaden the base,' which means that we need to make sure everyone pays something in income taxes. This yields the claim: The poor are on a 'free ride'

a sub point that Stewart makes between the main arguments is that these people don't have a job. Furthermore, his rhetoric "esta over" is a (not so) subtle claim that the poor are mexican immigrants (who are purportedly 'taking our jobs away'). This is not so much an argument, but a suggestion by Stewart that the conservatives may be targeting a particular class of people--immigrants. This is significant because immigration is another important issue in today's political climate.

3.) Conservatives: Taxing the 'poor' (euphemistically said 'broaden the base) will help balance the budget.

4.) Stewart: The poor control 2.5% of our nation's wealth. Stewart rounds this figure to about 1.4 trillion dollars "of everything they have on this earth."

5.) Stewart proposes let's take half of that. That's a 50% tax on the poor's income, which is an insane tax rate that would never pass. The conservatives are merely calling for a contribution, but surely even they would not tax 50%!

6.) Half of 1.4 trillion is 700,000,000 ---Where does this number sound familiar?

7.) 700,000,000 dollars is the amount of revenue (within 10 years) that would occur if we raised the tax rate on the top 2% only minimally (at least that's the way I understand it. For more information about this see:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html?pagewanted=all).

8.) Conservatives claim this is only a "fraction" of the government's budget, but this is precisely the amount that we would be able to generate if we took half of what the nation's poor owned in this world.


So, even if the tax base is "broadened" and everyone pays something (the bottom 50% included), considering that no sane person would consider taxing the poor 50% of what they own, this will generate less revenue in order to balance the budget.


The bottom line: a wavy one at that. . .

Since the conservatives  can no longer appeal to an economic incentive, their argument can only be justified by what one might call "fairness." The question we would then have to ask is, is it fair for the "makers" to carry the "takers" in the society? Is it fair for the rich to be burdened with balancing the budget?

This is a complex question and one that depends on your beliefs of the role of government, the role of business, and the role of the nation's wealthy. As Stewart points out in another segment regarding our "first world" status, we may be considered "third world" in that we have a VERY large gap in income inequality.

Now, the argument we might make is that these "rich" people are job creators and producers in society whereas many of the poor are not. However, we have to ask if our society would even function if all of these people stopped working their more mundane jobs that are supposedly created through the rich's benevolence. Who is more "productive" in society: the cleaning ladies at a hotel or big investors?

I want to make clear that this is not an easy question and it rests on one's values and definitions. However, there does seem to be a kind of misunderstanding or disregard for people we consider poor. Before we claim that it is "unfair" for the rich to carry such a burden, we need to remember that we are not all on an equal playing field. Rather, there are historical circumstances that have advantaged some people at the expense of others. To claim that the status quo is not already implicated in a kind of "class warfare" does not take into account the socio-political history of this country.

Furthermore, the fact that the "poor" have "modern conveniences" just show how necessary it is to have things like cell phones to participate in today's society.

Rhetoric of the Animal

 Indeed, if these people did not have these "modern conveniences" we may consider them more like "animals" because they are still using "primitive" methods. So, it seems as though we are saying that having these modern conveniences doesn't make them any less of an animal. As Stewart points out, this rhetoric is already employed in conservative arguments. The poor are described as:

Parasites
racoons
"irresponsible animals"

Ascribing animals status to those of us who are different than us in order to persecute them is a common tactic when we want to commit some sort of injustice against them. As an analogy, we used the same kind of language to designate Jews (they were "rats") who were destroying the economy. I make this statement NOT to suggest that the conservatives are like "Hitler," but rather that the use of these terms have justified some pretty horrible stuff. I refuse to engage in the hyperbolic rhetoric that calls Obama Hitler or Bush Hitler, but it is a fact that calling the poor "parasites" and "racoons" resonate with historical rhetorical tactics.

Compare this "animal rhetoric" with the way Buffet (and sometimes conservatives) claim they are being treated:

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species" (Buffet, "Stop coddling the rich").

Buffet is not the only one to use this rhetoric, as Stewart points out in another segment.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moneybrawl - The Extinction of Subway, Bill O'Reilly & the Super Rich
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Rhetoric of the Endangered Species

So let's recap here. We have a contrast between 2 types of animal:

The Poor are parasites, racoons, , 'animals' (in general) 

These are all animals that we consider "pests" who mooch off those who are "producing." But, of course, we would have to take into account that racoons are only mooching off, say, the middle class, who are not producing that rotten produce that they throw away because its a day old, but bought it at a grocery store. A grocery store that probably shipped that rotten tomato from some poorer country, who are producing the 'produce' we sell in the store.

The Rich are endangered species

Why do we protect endangered species? Do they add something essential to our ecosystem? Have we forgotten the idea of natural selection?

I'd like to suggest that perhaps we protect endangered species because they are beautiful to behold. To be really cynical, its as if we protect them so we have a more diverse zoo for human beings to look at. Endangered species are the "exceptions" to the animal realm--they are the rare ones that are difficult to attain. Sound familiar? Are we creating diversity or are we valuing these animals because they are rare like how we value people of an exceptional nature and in the same way that we except ourselves from the designation "animal"?

To end my exploration, I'd like to return to the response to Warren Buffet's article:

"The best way to balance the budget is for the economy to produce a lot more American success stories like Warren Buffett." (Stephen Moore, "Warren Buffet is wrong on Taxes"). 


Just as we see endangered species as exceptional, rare, and important, we see millionaires/billionaires as exceptional, rare, and important. Why do we look up to these people as if they were superhuman beings? Do we really want to be them?

Sequence versus Structure

When you read "The Banking Concept of Education," I want you to focus on the structure of the argument. This is slightly different from the 'sequence'

The 'sequence' of the argument would be "then Freire argures. . .then this. . .then this. . ." Talking about the "sequence" lends to paraphrasing the entire argument.

Instead, I want you to focus on the structure. So try to focus on how Freire transitions between paragraphs and then how the paragraphs work together to create a linear argument. The question to ask is not "what's next" but why is what's next in that position? Why did F. argue this before this? Are there 'premises' at the beginning that are necessary for F. to argue his further points. What contrasts does F. set up?

Great Student Example of Summary/Analysis

Summary/Analysis of Kanye West’s “Power”

            Rapper Kanye West, well-known for his cleverly-constructed yet controversial song lyrics and videos, compares his rise in the music industry to the rise to the superiority of Greek gods in his video “Power”. In this one minute and forty-three second video, a stern and omnipotent West plays the role of a Greek god as a number of subordinate Athenian characters slowly and gracefully move around him. West, who gradually marches forward in front of the open gates of heaven, exerts dominance and resilience even in the growing presence of these characters, which symbolize what he calls “the cruel world”. In both the lyrics and video, Kanye West reminds critics that his rise to the elite as a rapper has given him such power and responsibility that no one can knock him off his pedestal except for power itself.

Through his body language, Kanye West captures the role and journey he has taken as a song artist. He embodies a tough-as-nails persona through his piercing eyes and bull-like charge in his walk. As West steps forward, he encounters a growing crowd of Athenian figures, most of which are females portrayed as sex symbols. West’s forward walk signifies his ascending toward the pinnacle of his music career. The encounter of the female characters as well as the two male characters that leap in the air and draw their swords refer to the distractions that West himself inevitably faces in his career: women in search of fame, sex, or money; criticism from the media; and feuds with other artists. Just as notable is the placement of the female figures that resemble runway models; West deliberately positions these Athenian female characters below him to indicate that women are inferior to him. Throughout the entire video, West stares straight ahead

at the viewer, paying no attention to the characters surrounding him; by doing so, West insinuates that his focus is on his career and that he will not let anyone keep him from attaining and maintaining success in the music industry.

In addition to body language, Kanye West’s choice of words to describe himself and to address his critics highlights his egocentric personality. West admits that he “embodies every characteristic of the egotistic,” and in the chorus, he refers to himself as a “21^st century schizoid man.” Schizoid, according to the Cleveland Clinic, is a type of personality disorder characterized by aloofness and detachment from others, little desire or enjoyment for close relationships, “difficulty relating to others, indifference towards praise or criticism, and daydreams or vivid fantasies about complex inner lives.” These characteristics may well describe Kanye West, but it is the deliberate insertion of the phrases “embodies every characteristic of the egotistic” and “21^st century schizoid man” that one realizes that West is fully aware of his arrogant, self-centered personality. This awareness empowers him to ward off any form of criticism hurled at him.

 In the music business, great power draws greater scrutiny from the media and the public. As Kanye West points out in his lyrics, many of his critics believe that West is an “abomination of Obama’s nation” or a hated figure in present-day American society.  While such a comment may have at first offended West, West simply shrugs it off and reminds critics that “at the end of the day goddamn it he is killin’ [it]/[he] knows damn well [his critics and supporters] are feelin’ [it].” In other words, despite people’s abhorrence toward him, he continues to excel in both album sales and song charts. His music still resonates with people, and based on his prolonged success in record sales and on billboard charts, people continue to value his music, which is what matters to him most.                                                                                                                       

Finally, in an unexpected turn of events, Kanye West adds a suicidal element to the end of the song when he reiterates that he is “jumping out the window [and] letting everything go”. While West accepts and embraces the power that he has gained through his success as a music artist, West knows that he is vulnerable to the added pressure and scrutiny that comes with power. This overwhelming pressure can eventually lead to the demise of the powerful, but West sees this tragedy as a “beautiful death”. In this paradox, West suggests that there is beauty in the reassuring fact that by achieving success in his career, he has obtained the freedom and power to rid himself of everything he has gained. One may question why West would want to purge himself of his accomplishments. In response, West implies that he is only human and that one can only take so much pressure before he or she can no longer handle the demands of the media and the public, thus leading the almighty to dispose his or her power.

In the video “Power,” Kanye West appears not as a human being but as a god; a force that shows no sign of slowing down or losing strength, but beneath his tough exterior lays this vulnerability that feeds on growing power. As shown in his dominant stride, West, infamous for his detached, self-absorbed personality, embraces his egotism in order to protect himself from those figures—women, critics, foes--that take advantage of him or that wish to see him fail. In the lyrics, West considers himself “chosen” in a “white man’s world”, given the adversities that those particularly in the black community are going through such as poverty, education, and incarceration, and yet he still struggles with his own hardships, including taking on adult responsibilities as a prominent musical figure in society. For West, “reality is catching up with [him] taking [his] inner child [while he is] fighting for custody,” his “inner child” being that comfort zone that allows him to use his imagination and to engage in complex and creative thinking. This obstacle suggests that while Kanye West’s critics are not a major threat to his power, he, however, is.

Summary/Analysis: Reflections

 Organization/Paragraphing
The biggest problem I saw with the summary/analysis was the way paragraphs were formed and organized. Although sentence level issues related to grammar and style were frequent also, they are less important as they can always be fixed and honed.

If you organized your paragraphs as a kind of "chronological" analysis, your paragraphs were uneven and rarely focused on one point. Instead, they drift off in other directions. In order to write about any text, you must be able to create your own "temporality" that you can write within. Your argument should somehow "develop" or "move" and you need to be able to signpost these movements with words like "Although," "However," "But," "In contrast," rather than merely saying "x" represents this. Although this may be a great way to take notes (simply moving through the video and interpreting all the images), it produces a disorganized and non-unified paper.

I suspect that some of this stems from your wish to speak in terms of "symbolizing." Now, I am not saying in the least that there are not symbols within the Kanye West video (Sword of Damocles, Horus Chain, daggers,etc), but you have to be able to say something with these symbols more explicitly than that they "relate" to power. When discussing things" symbolically, it seems as though you think that the argument does not have to move linearly in some sort of logical progression. Furthermore, its important to show how these symbols connect with each other. These images cannot be interpreted in isolation of one another--they are all part of the same 'image'/painting/video.

 You have to decide what your paragraphs will be "about"--this is what teachers have meant by "topic sentence" and then you can take paragraphs, move them around, and think about how to transition between them. What is the connection between one paragraph and the next? What is the connection between a paragraph on the women surrounding Kanye and the men that replace them? Is it one of contrast? analogy? etc. etc.

This "movement" of paragraphs  is what Bartholomae and Petrosky mean by writers "punctuating" essays. We will talk more about this as we move through the other texts we will be using.

Sentence-Level issues


A couple of common ones:

• avoid "you" as much as possible
• avoid using contractions (don't, can't, etc.) in any formal writing--it sounds too colloquial 
• check for unneeded words and passive voice. Examples of unneeded words are intensifying adverbs and adjectives  like "completely," "obviously," "clearly," "very," "really." 
• Unneeded passive voice--this only obscures what you are trying to say (or poorly masks that you have nothing to say)

Argument

 Prezi: 

Classical Argument on Prezi

Syllogisms and Enthymemes

I hope you all enjoyed your little logic lesson in Syllogisms and enthymemes. Just to review, I will post an example of the syllogism I wrote on the board today in class.

Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion

A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Enthymeme:  A syllogism that is missing one of its premises, which assumes an underlying connection between the first and third premise.


Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.  The implied premise here being all men are mortal.

The "underlying assumption" is the point I wanted to get across most forcefully in class today. An underlying assumption tends to be a value held by a particular audience or group of people. By identifying these values, one can understand where an argument is coming from. Attacking the underlying assumptions is a great way to attack an argument!

An underlying assumption in a lot of arguments can be framed as an imperative, that is, as what one "should" or "ought" to do. 

For example, in 3rd period class, we did an exercise (on pg 345) "Creating argument schemas.

Claim with reason: We should buy a hybrid car rather than an SUV with a HEMI engine bceaues doing so will help the world save gasoline.

underlying assumption: we should save gasoline (even more specific: we should help the world conserve gasoline). Or, "saving gasoline is good" (the "good" and the "should" sort of amount to the same thing here)

Taxing the Rich--Readings for Friday

Class,

Please print out these articles and read them through for FRIDAY. We will talk about the strengths and weaknesses of these two writer's arguments.

The Warren Buffet Controversy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?ref=opinion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576466541882356616.html

Peer Review Process

This first 30 minutes of class will be silent. We will not talk to the person who has our draft. We will keep reading, re-reading, and writing notes that will help us discuss the draft.

I. Exchange drafts with a partner

II. Read Draft once all the way through, marking only places that you are confused are are particularly good (without comments)

III. Identify and write down what you consider their "thesis sentence." Now rephrase their thesis in your own words. If you cannot find a thesis, mark that.

III. Identify 4 things:

1.) At least one spot in the draft you are reading where you were confused; explain why in "readerly" terms ("I was confused when. . .because. . ." rather than "your sentences are confusing)

2.) At least one place where the ideas seem "thin" and may need more development/elaboration

3.) At least one place where you do not see the significance of what the other person is saying--why is it there? so what?

4.) At least one place where you could play "devil's advocate" or 'object' to the writer's ideas.

IV. Check for grammar/spelling/syntax errors.

V. Edit for "style" (if you think things can be said better).

VI. Write a final "summary" of the review. What are its "strong points" what are its "weak points" Make two-three suggestions for revision.

For the remaining 15-20 minutes of class, discuss your notes on the student's draft. This is also the time when you can raise your hand and ask me questions.