Al Franken has written a liberal masterpiece of epic proportions. If any individual should fail to understand the “obvious conservative bias in the media” or “the Bush Administrations total lack of competence and initiation of ‘Operation Ignore’” they need only to pick up Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them to get their facts straight.
From page one Al Franken launches into a very detailed, volatile, humorous, self-patronizing, and sometimes lewd all out assault on the extreme right. His first victim to fall is Ann Coulter, who I must admit, completely deserved the endless onslaught provided by Franken. His detailed fact-checking, word-twisting, humor and just-barely-good-enough-to-cover-his-own-derrière concessions made the entire section a rather informative, albeit, attack-based, vulgarity laced, read. The next individual on the chopping block was Bill O-Reilly who’s inspiring comments such as “He says he’s a satirist. If Franken’s a satirist then I’m Jennifer Lopez” and “shut up!” and “shut up!” and “Satire my butt.” and “SHUT UP!” fill the books review pages. Franken has such a high respect for O’Reilly that he even dedicates the book to him (after hastily crossing out the typed dedication to his wife and family). Franken then slowly but surely picks apart O’Reilly, the ‘No Spin Zone,’ FOX News Corporation, and O’Reilly’s life story in a comical, degrading, and insulting fashion that is sure to leave the reader rolling on the ground with laughter or head bursting like a cheap water balloon from fury. Regardless, anything and everything O’Reilly had ever come into contact with is essentially damned to hell and
Lumia 2
burned with sulfur by the time Franken reaches his climactic ending. Fortunately (or unfortunately) Fr...
... middle of paper ...
...one else retorts with is false. Absolutes, normally in any form, should cause a reader concern and require deeper research before a verdict can be reached. That being said, despite his slightly slimy tactics (sadly much like the ones he condemns) Franken’s arguments are logical and convincing in their own satirical way. One might be slightly more inclined to believe the book and treat it as a Grail of sorts if they find themselves swimming in the liberal end of the political pool, whereas conservative swimmers would do everything to burn the book with any means necessary. For those who like to wade and splash around in the middle of the watering-hole, it’s a great read for all those interested in a funny, interesting, and excitably written piece. A word of the wise to all those who do pick it up though, in the words of Al Franken “Don’t believe everything you read.”
His readers now see his perspective and why books should not be banned. It is clear the Conroy used the rhetorical devices in a planned way. This allowed him to create a letter designed to persuade the readers in a way that appealed to their emotions. He used positive and negative diction, positive and negative imagery, and conjunctions in a way that would grab the reader's’ attention leading them to believe banning books is ultimately censoring students from the harsh realities that the world has to offer. This is leaving them censored and ignorant to the truth of the
Lying is a natural human defense that we use for various things. Everyone lies. In The Crucible we get to see exactly what could happen if lies spiral out of control to the point where crying witch is believed at every turn. In the article “Ways We Lie” by Stephanie Ericsson, she discusses the different types of lying and when they are typically used. Some of these include Facade, White Lies, and Groupthink. These three types of lying are directly relevant and present in The Crucible. The plot is driven by lies, and as they pile on top of eachother is becomes harder and harder to uncover the truth.
The authors do eventually (pg. 205) acknowledge that some may see the book as trying to enrage the public just to sell books. In fact, Ron Levy, P...
In theory, political campaigns are the most important culmination of the democratic debate in American politics. In practice, however, the media shrouds society’s ability to engage in a democratic debate with unenlightening campaign coverage. Because of this, it is difficult—if not impossible—to have educated political discourse in which the whole, factual truth is on display. After years of only seeing the drama of presidential campaigns, the American public has become a misinformed people.
He examined twelve textbook and stated that “Two of the twelve textbooks I studied were "inquiry" textbooks, assembled from primary sources… The ten narrative textbooks in my sample continue to pay overwhelming attention to the actions of the executive branch of the federal government.” Basically, all these textbooks does not really portray the history of US. And imply that the balance of power has not changed. It excluded its participation in state-sponsored terrorism, and just showed how America is a heroic, wonderful country. Thus, ruining the real history of US and the way people look at the
When initially asked about the morality of lying, it is easy for one to condemn it for being wrong or even corrupt. However, those asked are generally guilty of the crime on a daily basis. Lying is, unfortunately, a normal aspect of everyday life. In the essay “The Ways We Lie,” author Stephanie Ericsson makes note of the most common types of lies along with their consequences. By ordering the categories from least to most severe, she expresses the idea that lies enshroud our daily lives to the extent that we can no longer between fact and fiction. To fully bring this argument into perspective, Ericsson utilizes metaphor, rhetorical questions, and allusion.
In the short story The Ways We Lie, Stephanie Ericsson describes many different categories of lies. She first starts out explain the little white lie, describing it as a lie which is told when trying to avoid hurting someone. An example she gives in the text is, “telling a friend he looks great when he looks like hell can be based on a decision that the friend needs a compliment more than a frank opinion”(Ericsson, 2004, 121). Ericsson then describes facades, facades according to the Ericsson is when a person shows you what they want you to see, but it’s not the real them. Stating “facades can be destructive because they are used to seduce others into an illusion” (Ericsson, 2004, 122). A perfect example of facades are when a person has to
American liberalism has deviated from its core values and constituents hence metamorphosing into a toxic disdainful movement. Emmett Rensin in his article in Vox dubbed “The Smug Style in American Liberalism” captures these observations perfectly. He notes that through the condescending notion of knowing has alienated the contemporary liberals from their core values that were deemed progressive in the past. The movement is currently cloaked as the “monopoly on reason” and has a “defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside its consensus” (Rensin). The article infuses rhetorical strategies that are critical in advancing the author’s core message to his target audience.
Comedian Jon Stewart gives a speech on the Daily Show during the “Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear”. He wants the viewers of the Daily Show to realize the difference between the real and fake threats and to take a humorous perspective on most of America’s “problems”. Stewart also emphasizes to his audience not to take every person on the media by his word and not to overreact to everything they hear. He uses metaphors, comparisons, and hypothetical examples to get his point across.
Every year in the United States we have books being banned and challenged by many people who do not like the contents of books. When researching for this argument essay I found an article written by Rebecca Hagelin. Rebecca Hagelin is the author of Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture That’s Gone Stark Raving Mad and the vice president of communications and marketing at the Heritage Foundation (Lankford).
The idea that the United Stated government creates false pretenses and manipulates the American people to engage in a war that is supported has been an ongoing debate for a long period of time. The most notable war, perhaps, is the war in Iraq led by the G. W. Bush administration. Another notable war would be the Vietnam war led by the L. B. Johnson administration. I have always found people’s complex theories and assumptions extremely interesting, so I chose to watch “The Lies That Lead to War” with Charles Lewis.
This approach was used throughout Sarah Palin’s political run. Thus, making political satire change the meaning of political journalism. Ian Reilly presents this argument in Satirical Fake News and/as American Political Discourse, saying: “Over the past decade, satirical ‘fake’ news has emerged as ubiquitous of popular political discourse that questions, above all else the logical and integrity of contemporary journalistic practices (Reilly, 2012.)” Consequently, reinforcing our argument that political satire not only shouldn’t be ignored. It also presents the dynamic change of how political journalism is
It is a book that my child may never be able to read. It seems that the only logical reasoning to aid in what offends people is to completely eliminate the book from the library. A better approach is to understand that this book may help them examine other beliefs, attitudes, values, and traditions and to accept, tolerate, or even reject these ideas without prejudices against people who hold particular views. In the democracy In which we live, where regularly all ideas are debatable. A wide range on all points of view should be available to the public.
What are lies? A lie is defined as follows: To make a statement that one knows to be false, especially with the intent to deceive. There are several ways that lies are told for instance, there are white lies, lies of omission, bold faced lies, and lies of exaggeration. No matter what type of lie that one chooses to tell many people believe that lies do more harm than good.
From the beginning days of the printing press to the always evolving internet of present day, the media has greatly evolved and changed over the years. No one can possibly overstate the influential power of the new media of television on the rest of the industry. Television continues to influence the media, which recently an era of comedic television shows that specialize in providing “fake news” has captivated. The groundbreaking The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its spin-off The Colbert Report have successfully attracted the youth demographic and have become the new era’s leading political news source. By parodying news companies and satirizing the government, “fake news” has affected the media, the government, and its audience in such a way that Bill Moyers has claimed “you simply can’t understand American politics in the new millennium without The Daily Show,” that started it all (PBS).