RTCM 1

It's interesting that the topics we didn't cover in class seem to be sticking in my head the longest. Yeah, I get DIDLS and all that. It makes me want to DI but it comes pretty easily after studying it for a while. It's the Existentialism and Theater of the Absurd that get me really thinking. Not those really smart, deep thoughts that the smart, deep kids have, but sort of simple observations, mainly about existentialism. So I'm focusing on that. But before I do, please don't come to me and say "You misinterpreted the entire reading!" This was studied outside of class.I know I'm probably wrong. Or maybe we're just thinking about it differently. Anyway, here goes.

Existentialism is messed up. In a lot of ways. Specifically the part about making choices independent of morals, laws, ethics, etc. Maybe a little more than that. The part about considering the negative consequences on the society around you and accepting responsibility for your actions. You all read it, here's my question. If our choices are free from any outside influence, tangible or in-, then by what standards do we judge an adequate punishment for our actions? That is, every choice is free. But if every choice were truly free, why consider the negative consequences on society? Is that really a free choice if the weight of taking responsibility is on the shoulders of the chooser? If existentialists are supposedly making decisions without influence of law or morals, then by what guidelines are they assuming responsibility for their actions? There is no right or wrong affecting their choice. Why is there suddenly right and wrong when the decision has been made? Isn't  right and wrong decided on the effect these choices make on society? How can the chooser ignore the fact that he will be punished (perfectly reasonably by death) for whatever choice he makes? 

I don't know. Maybe I'm too far in. I won't agree with everything and not all of it will ever make sense to me. Now I've checked my email and the Literary Cat (look it up on Tumblr, it's not what you think) too many times on the last few minutes to continue writing anything of note except this- According to our reading, a claim of existentialism is that some things are simply absurd or irrational, without possible explanation. Well, one of those things is existentialism. Welcome to philosophy.

Close Reading, 9/14

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/what-will-finally-doom-the-death-penalty.html

     Danielle LaChance's article "What will Doom the Death Penalty?" offers heavy opinions regarding capital punishment. The article influences readers most profoundly through diction, details, and structure.
     First, details. LaChance proves that she is knowledgeable about the topic by providing specific examples of deaths-gone-wrong and other flaws in the system. Take, for example, the top of the third paragraph.

"In 1972, the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutionally unfair, but left the door open for states to come up with new laws to remedy the arbitrary sentencing criteria it found troubling."

     This example displays one of the facts about the death penalty LaChance researched. She goes on the explain how different groups tried taking advantage of that particular ruling. Her use of these periodic facts (others can be found in paragraphs six and seven) lead to readers assuming that she is learned on the subject. Readers that haven't done the research LaChance has may be impressed by her insight and could be attracted to her arguements simply because they assume she knows more than they do. 
     Another rhetoric LaChance exercises frequently is imagery, or what the reader feels/sees when reading. See the last lines of her first paragraph- 

"...voters will finally see capital punishment for what it is: an intolerable affront to human dignity."

     Sentences like these tend to sort of inspire readers. They create a feeling that goes with the article. This specific example leaves readers with a feeling of offense with the rest of the article. Intolerable? A reader sees that something may be intolerable and synonymizes it with something bad. An affront to human dignity? Readers are usually proud. They may go right along with Lachance's description of capital punishment. By the time they reach the second paragraph, LaChance has already planted a feeling of disgruntlement. More examples can be provided, but really every other line contains another one. Diction at this level leads to images that can very easily sway readers to seeing from LaChance's point of view. 
     Lastly comes LaChance's diction of the article. Focusing on what Lachance didn't say rather than what she did, the story is lacking a different point of view. As an editorial this can easily be expected, but discrediting the oppositions arguments can often do more to persuade readers than simply offering your own. Lachance provides many examples that support her points and says plenty about her subject, but a reader may begin to wonder why she never included or addressed an opposing view. She makes her thought very clear, but that's about it.