Thanks for your posts last week! I especially appreciate the efforts of those who have been posting week to week. Remember that each post is worth 1% of your final grade. Blogging is a skill that you may need in other classes and in your careers. It also should increase your awareness of your audience and rhetorical situation. My hopes are that you will use these posts to become more conscious of your spelling, grammar and mechanics, and reasoning. These posts provide vital practice in writing.
This week's question:
Last week we read essays by Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel regarding the war in Iraq. This week we will read "Guys vs. Men" by Dave Barry and two famous documents by Thomas Jefferson and Frederick Douglass.
Use this post to compare and contrast any of these readings. Find 2-3 things they share and 2-3 places where they differ.
Remember that posts should be a minimum of five sentences to receive credit.
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Jinny
I chose to compare and contrast the two stories by Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel. The two stories differ in a few different ways. The first way I noticed was Carter thinks we went to war to quickly, and Wiesel supports President Bush, and thought he made a good decision to go to war. The second reason they differed was their resons for speaking out on the war, and the different backgrounds they have that gives them a right to speak out. Carter was an ex-president, so he has the political background, and knowledge in this area that he should be able to speak out. Wiesel's reasons are he's been to war, he's been persecuted in war, and the reason people will listen and respect his opinion is because he's been there. My final reason is that they both look at different people to blame for the war. Carter points his finger at the president, and the bad decisions he made, and Wiesel blames Hussein.
The two stories are also similar in a few different ways. They are both by creditable people that know what they are talking about, and they both have strong reasons behind why they feel the way they do. Both stories have strong logos. Also both men knew this war was going to present itself, and knew it would eventually someday be inevitable.
In "Just War- or a Just War?" Jimmy Carter presents a strong case against the current war in Iraq. Elie Wiesel, however, takes an opposing stand in "Peace Isn't Possible in Evil's Face."
While Carter and Wiesel express different opinions about the Iraqi war, they both share the belief that war is always negative and, if possible, should be avoided. At this point, however, they begin to differ. Carter upholds the belief that America was wrong to wage war against Iraq, but Wiesel believes that war was necessary for the preservation of innocent Iraqis.
These men both draw their opinions from their own life experiences. Carter has faced much criticism as the result of foreign affairs during his presidency; it seems only natural that he would hesitate to entangle the nation in such a delicate international situation. Elie Wiesel, on the other hand, has experienced the horrors of Auschwitz; therefore, he seeks to protect others from suffering as he did.
Both Carter and Wiesel make strong points in their essays. Through their conflicting pieces, we see the importance of viewing issues from several different angles. As Carter and Wiesel illustrate, there are always several sides to one story.
-Adrian Elliott
I am comparing and contrasting the articles by Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel. I found the two different opinions of these men very intriguing. Both of these men are good credible upstanding citizens with strong moral fiber, yet their opinions of the Iraq war differ greatly. They both agree that war is bad and the results of going to war are also bad in the respect to the cost both financially and human life. This is pretty much the end of the part where they agree.
They do not agree on the time line or circumstances which should take place before proceeding with war. Jimmy Carter thinks we should proceed slowly and cautiously and meet certain criteria before proceeding, whereas Elie Wiesel believes that we have been wronged and we should proceed with war because stalling only allows the terrorist time to do more damage or to prepare themselves for our attack. Jimmy Carter though a respected man and an ex-president has held a reputation for not acting aggressively enough nor quickly enough. Elie Wiesel on the other hand has endured the wrath of having attacks on his people and himself and knows that as unpleasant as it is you sometimes need to take an eye for an eye without delay in order to maintain some kind of structure and to let these types of people (terrorists) know that they cannot do as they please to us because we will not just sit idly by and let it happen.
Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel are two men with completely different backgrounds and experiences. They both have experienced war and trouble with internation affairs, just from different stand points. Carter, a former president of the United States, had to face different struggles and obstacles dealing with other countries. Wiesel was forced to experience the horrors of Auschwitz.
Both men agree that war is a terrible thing that should be avoided if at all possible. They also agree in saying that the war in Iraq was gone about the wrong way. Carter lists many things from a presidential view that should have been done before entering the country. Wiesel believes that we waited too long to invade. Hussein has been around for a while, and we as a country have known this. He strongly believes that time is of the essence, and we've wasted too much of it.
Carter thinks that the war in Iraq is unnecessary. He brings up the 9/11 terrorists attacks, and how it has not been possible to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Wiesel is against war, but believes that we need to fix what we have started. He's fearful that Hussein will become another Hitler, and needs to be stopped immediately.
Caitlin Weaver
I will choose to compare Carter and Jefferson. Carter’s essay contains what he thinks reasons that would justify going to war. While Jefferson’s essay is about the reasons America has for going to war. Both use their own personnel judgment to justify their reasoning. Both speak from a place of power that helps to give them credibility and give reasons that would appeal to the emotions of others to help persuade them to see their points of view. But in both cases it still would come down to the readers personnel feelings as to the way they would be swayed.
"Just War-or a Just War?" by Jimmy Carter is similar to Elie Wiesel's essay, "Peace Isn't Possible in Evil's Face" in a sense that both have important points that stem from their personal backgrounds that also gives them credibility. They both give the reader the negative effects of war, although they come from two different point of views. Jimmy Carter was a President and takes a more political and well structured viewpoint. Whereas, Elie Wiesel won the Noble Peace Prize after living through the Holocaust, taking a more emotional viewpoint.
alreed1
After doubting myself to do the essays of Thomas Jefferson and Frederick Douglass, I finally chose to compare and contrast the essays by Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel.
Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel, both were winners of Nobel Peace Prize, though happened in different years. They also share their own opinions toward the war, that's been happening in the past and recently. Not only that, they both also making a point, which can change people's thoughts.
Jimmy Carter is the thirty-ninth president of the United State, who had seen and familiarized with the war. Although, he wasn't the best president but his career after retirement is getting strong, for people to look up to. Carter illustrates,"Despite Saddam Husein's other serious crimes, american efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvicing" (260).
He disagree about the war in Iraq, because of what Saddam Husein has done to the people in our country.
On the other hand, Elie Wiesel, an eyewitness of the war and had been deported to the Aushwitz concentration camp, writes about his own opinion about war and his experience. Wiesel thinks differently from Carter, where he says,"this is I support President Bush's policy of intervention..., is the greatest threat facing us today) (262). He's saying that he supports the war that's happening in Iraq, because he's seen what war is like fro his experience.
I noticed that both stories have credibility (ethos) and logos from the authors, who have experiences extraordinary life experiences. But then again, War is it just war? Or war to seek for peace?
There are many reasons for a county to go to war. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is a letter to the king of England. He writes the wrong that has happened to the States. In Wiesel’s essay he is in favor of war also. Both men feel that war may be the only answer for freedom. Jefferson wants freedom for the rule of England were Wiesel says war is needed to stop the loss of freedom. Jefferson goes into great detail of how the king has taken away freedom. Wiesel says if Hussein was not stopped there could have been deaths of the likes of Hitler.
JWBoden
I personally enjoyed reading “Guys vs. Men”. The article told how to tell if a male was either a “guy” or a “man”. Reading this article I learned how Barry seems to feel guys are more laid back and easy going then men. He feels men are much more professional and not as easy going. He also tells how much guys love power and having “cool” toys. He tells how he has to have the best most powerful computer to type on.
The main similarity between the essays of Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel is that they both deal with the current issue of the war in Iraq. Also, both authors have the advantage of excellent ethos. Carter has dealt with the issue of war from a political standpoint while Wiesel has experience as a victim of war and knows first hand the horrors that result from it. And, of course, they’re underlying ideals are the same. They wish for peace and freedom from suffering for all. This is also where the two differ. Carter wishes to avoid war altogether while Wiesel believes that war could possibly prevent further suffering with intervention. Although they both effectively use rhetoric, they differ in their focus. Carter focuses on using logos to prove his point through logically proving that the Iraqi war does not meet certain criteria. On the other hand, Wiesel uses ethos by describing some of the nightmares that could result from letting tyrants sit too long without intervention.
Although these two essays are fundamentally different, both are extremely effective and get their points across clearly.
Mollie B.
First off to contrast the stories Carter was a president in the past so that's one good reason why people should listen to him. Elie was in a war before and has been through horrible experiences, that's why people should listen to him. Carter thinks that we went into war to fast and not have thought things through about it. Elie thought it was the right thing to do because he is scared that Iraq leader will turn into another Hitler.
I think both of them have strong backgrounds to their stories. They both have the right reasons to speak because they both know what they are talking about but in different views.
I am comparing and contrasting President Carter and Mr. Wiesel. Both men have different, yet strong ethos to some extent. President Carter was obviously President at one point and should know the political viewpoints on war, from his personal experiences at the healm of the U.S. However, Wiesel has credibility, because he was a survivor of the Holocaust. Both men refer to Generals of our Armed Forces in a sense to boost their credibility on the issue of going to war in Iraq. I found it interesting that neither men could get direct quotes from the Generals they referred to as a source of their information. President Carter had strong opposition for President Bush to send U.S. troops to Iraq. However, Wiesel thought it was a just cause for the U.S. to put troops in Iraq. President Carter refers to his faith; while Wiesel never mentioned anything about his faith. I think President Carter was trying to gain credibility when referring to his faith and he was not successful when doing so. Overall, Wiesel did a better job at captivating my mind. Wiesel was treated with brutallity from his leader and understood the agony of war. However, he knew that it was necessary as a last resort. I don't ever recall President Carter being attacked by his leader. I also know President Carter doesn't have the best reputation amongst former Presidents. So, Wiesel had a unique way of sharing his viewpoints, because his viewpoints on war were what he had dealt with firsthand.
Brokaw
I am comparing and contrasting the essays by Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel. These two men share only a few things in common in their essays. First, their both respected men, Jimmy Carter is a former president and Elie Wiesel has been in a concentration camp and is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner. The two authors are addressing the Iraq war and whether or not we should have gone into it. They both agree that war is a terrible thing that causes death and suffering and should only be waged as a last resort, but their time tables on that very subject differ. Carter believes that we didn't use all of our nonviolent options before entering into the Iraq war. Wiesel on the other hand believes that we didn't enter the Iraq war soon enough.
I really enjoyed reading Guys Vs Men by Dave Barry. He compared how men act to how guys act. Guys are more wild and careless, while men are more settle and caring. Guys like cool stuff while men like not so cool stuff. I also enjoyed reading Just War by Jimmy Carter. His idea of going to war is that it is not necessary. War is not the answer in his eyes. Both stories use a lot of ethos and the difference between them is that Dave has humor in his story while Jimmy is very serious about war and its effect on the Nation.
I compared Jimmy Carter's and Elie Wiesel's articles. They both are reliable people. They both have credibility mostly because Carter was a former present of the United States. So he has the experience of running a very power country. Elie Wiesel is also a very creditable subject. Mostly because he is holocaust victim .they both feel the war is a very controversial subject. However; Carter feels that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. He feels that they should work it out on their own. Elie on the other hand feels that we are doing the right thing. A wiser man other then myself once said the only necessary thing needed for the triumph of evil is for good man to do nothing. We are in Iraq not to be a world power. But to protect the people that can not protect them selves.
-Greg Call
I am comparing and contrasting Jimm Carter and Eli Wiese's stories. I agree with Jenni in that Jimmy Carter has the political experience to rightfull express his opinion on war. He expresses his thoughts on the fact we maybe the war on Iraq to abbruptly. Alot of people were (and still are) not happy with the way he handled the hostage situation during his presidency. Rules of war should be applied persistently with every war involving this country, yet things have changed since the late 70s early 80s ( during Carters presidency). He persistently states that he is a christian which Weisel does not . He is trying to appeal to religious anti-war side of war. One thing he and Weisel agree on, is that war is never a good thing. Weisel focuses on his experiences of war first hand, wich is a creadible persuasion. He (Weisel) says that war is the only option in the face of evil. Which, I fully agree and wish these anti-war advocates could see that. You may not agree with the Presidents actions, but in the end congress and the secretary of defense (together with our commander in chief) ought to know what they are doing.
Well when comparing and contrasting Elie Wiesel and Jimmy Carter it’s not hard. They both have there ups and downs. Jimmy Carter was a president but after hearing that he was considered one of the worst presidents. Jimmy knows how everything works in the white house, Elie does not. Elie on the other hand knows first hand what happens in war, and yet he says we did the right thing. They both think at some point you must go to war. There way of getting there is just different. But that’s for most people. Joel
My choice for this blog is comparing the essays by Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel. Carter is an ex president that beleives jumping into war is a horrible idea where as Wiesel was a prisoner of Auschwitz during the Nazi Genocide and beleives war should be used immediantly to stop the enemy now. Carter speaks negatively against the war in Iraq, while Wiesel thinks evil people like the Nazi's and Hussein should be stopped whether it means going to war or not. Eventhough they disagree on why you should enter the war, they do agree that war should be a last option. Carter thinks the war in Iraq should have never happened and blames it on the President Bush, while Wiesel thinks the war was a good idea because it is saving many helpless Iraqies and was protecting everyone from terrorists. Both have the credibility to make the reader agree with them but Wiesel uses pathos as well which, to me, helps him win over many readers. I think Carter, being an ex president would still have more knowledge on the subject and should actually be the one who's decision should be trusted at the end of the day.
Blake V
Post a Comment