Rhetorical Analysis - April 13

This rhetorical analysis is going to be about the book "Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank. It has nothing to do with healthcare or energy or schools, but it does try to make a point. Mr. Frank was in a line of work that had something to do with nuclear missiles or something like that, but then he realized the inherent danger of atomic energy. He began trying to lobby against the use of nuclear weapons. So he wrote this book about what would happen to a small community in Florida if the Cuban missile crisis (yes, it's an old book) escalated to the nuclear level.

S - It is not quite sufficient. He set out to educate everyone on what would happen in nuclear winter, and it turned into more of a novel than an educational story. He provides a lot of information, but not in a format that would convince anyone of anything.
T - It is not typical of environmental-type warnings at all. I have yet to see Michael Moore write a novel about an issue. Or do anything else worth mentioning.
A - The information seems to be quite accurate, as the writer seems to be familiar with government procedure, protocol, and course of action. He also is familiar with the part of world in which he places the story.
R - Not all of it is relevant. Again, it is a novel.

Ethos - His credibility is high, both from the information given and his personal background.
Pathos - The emotions played to are really angst and the human sense of drama. There is love, loss, family, and survival all tied together, but nothing to really convince the reader to protest nuclear missile programs.
Logos - He does try to play to logic in this book. He gives a very possible scenario, and makes the decisions that the characters make very real and typical of people in those types of situations.

All in all, it was a good read, but it didn't really forewarn me of the nuclear apocalypse, which was his original intent in writing the book.

Technique - April 10

I'm going to do some more brainstorming today about healthcare.

How much would taxes go up if a mandatory national healthcare system were implemented?
Would the training and/or selection of doctors and nurses change?
What would determine the funding of hospitals: population or track record?
Would students be "recruited" to become doctors, in order to fill the need?
Would more scholarships then become available for those students?
How would those scholarships be funded?
If students are recruited to become doctors and nurses, would the government necessarily pay for their education? For their malpractice insurance?
What would the restrictions be on which doctors you could visit: by town, county, state?
Would any additional funds be allocated to hospitals besides those raised from healthcare taxes?
During times of low economy, what takes more precedence: the army or healthcare? Most republicans would try to balance it out, whereas many democrats might believe that the army should be withdrawn from all its foreign posts, so as to get more funds to healthcare.
If every citizen in the nation has the same healthcare provider, which is funded through taxes, what happens to those people who do not pay taxes? Not children or the elderly, but people who choose to not pay taxes? They have a right to be healthy, but they have not paid for their healthcare with their own taxes. Would tax records then become part of the procedure at hospitals?

If we kept our current system, what could be changed to better it? Maybe a combination of federal and private funding, so that insurance starts at medicaid for everyone, and then additional insurances could be added by citizens?
If there is healthy competition between medical providers and innovators, would those advancements as a result of competition decrease if more unbiased federal funding is added to the system?

Free Write - April 8

My wife had to go to the hospital about 7 months ago. She had a cough that wouldn't go away, and chest pains. They ran all sorts of tests, only to find out it was pleurisy, which has a very simple cure: take some antibiotics and wait. Of course, the bill was tremendous, because they did an X-ray, did blood test, etc., etc. I'm not arguing this. What I don't understand is how such a high-tech place like a hospital can not have its act together when it comes to billing. Over the course of the three months following her visit, we had bills come from over 5 different sources. One from our insurance, one from the radiology department, one from the council of physicians, one from the hospital itself, blah, blah, blah. We had no idea who needed to be paid what or why, because all these bills came at the same time. Couldn't there be an easier way? Couldn't they just make up a bill and send it to us? Granted, it would have been a very large, one-sum bill, but it would have saved us a lot of grief. I mean, come on. Such a frequently-used and modern institution should SURELY be able to rake all the payments into one bill for the consumer, and then distribute it among those that need to be paid. But no. I mean, with all the money pouring into those places, they couldn't hire a couple of people to consolidate bills and mail sent out? O, well. Such is America, I suppose. If they consolidate bills, then the next logical step would be complete and total socialism, no? And goodness knows how many hippies would be up in arms about that . . .

Free Write - April 3

I was reading the news the other day, when I came across a story that triggered thoughts on another subject. In Georgia (USA), some 8 year old third graders had been scolded by their teacher for something insignificant, and they decided that they needed to teach her a lesson. They came to school with handcuffs, duct tape, and a steak knife. The plan was to knock her unconscious, handcuff her and tape her to the desk, then stab her with the steak knife. First of all, when I was 8, I didn't even know that rebellion was an option. If I got scolded, it was my fault, and I had to face up to it. Second, even if I HAD decided to rebel, the idea of physically harming an adult was the furthest thing from my mind. Where did these kids get the idea from? The police chief in the area blames it on video games and violence. I tend to agree with him on the video games part of it, but not the violence part. The last 500 years or so have been the first time in the history of the world that kids did NOT grow up with violence. British children in the 800s saw Viking raiders torch, murder, and rape. Roman children saw executions, sieges, and sackings. But they didn't turn into little homocidal freaks. At least, not in comparison to their times. But for some reason, our age seems incapable of bringing up children with an "appropriate" understanding of violence. It's not that being exposed to violence makes someone a murderer. I grew up playing soccer, and I am not David Beckham. That may be a bit of a stretch, but this is my reasoning: I played soccer on a team. I went to practice, ran laps, played drills, got yelled at by the coach, won and lost games, and saw everything that it takes to become good at that sport. I didn't just see a soccer game and immediately think that I could become amazing with no effort. I didn't play FIFA on my XBox and then suppose that those hours in front of the tube would translate into real world skills. How does this relate to 8 year old kids in Georgia? They may have seen violent actions on a video game, and thought that no real world consequences could come of their decisions. Children who grew up in another age saw what physically happened when someone was stabbed. They saw the blood, hear the cries, and knew (even if they only experienced it once) that being stabbed or stabbing someone brought with it actualized results. So, in my mind, it was not the violence that corrupted those children in that third grade class, but the FALSENESS of the violence they had seen. Everything is capable of traumatizing and warping a person, if no context or support is given to the person.