Close Reading

Close Reading 12/11/11
 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/world/africa/congo-police-abducting-opposition-supporters-reports-say.html?ref=world

Living in America, we take a lot of freedoms for granted. With the presidential election around the corner, the media is focusing heavily on the GOP debates. There is a lot of name calling and bickering, but shouldn't we step back for a minute and reflect on how lucky we truly are? In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a presidential election was recently held. However, reportedly, the polls were corrupt and the victor may not be the true president. With that information, should Americans be proud that we actually have a say in who runs our country, whether we agree with them or not?

The imagery in this article from the New York times is appalling; how on earth could officers being chasing down little boys and beating them? The first sentence of the story sets up the rest of the article to be extremely bone-chilling. "Police were going door to door on Saturday, taking youths out of houses in an opposition neighborhood and pushing them into unmarked vehicles, a day after the incumbent was declared the winner in a disputed presidential election." After reading that sentence, my mouth dropped. What can possibly be the rational for taking youth out of their own houses because they live in an "opposition neighborhood." This imagery really helps draw a connection with the people of Congo. It helps the audience understand what the people are currently fighting for and suffering through everyday while I sit at home typing on my computer in a warm house.

There are some staggering statistics in this article such as the amount of votes Mr. Kabila received in one area. ",,, official results in one district of Katanga Province had Mr. Kabila receiving 227,855 votes out of 227,858 cast, with a 90 percent turnout — a result the group called “highly suspect.”It is extremely hard to believe that all but three people voted for this man. Details like this throughout the piece help the audience, who is most likely naive to the situation, understand how corrupt this election potentially is.

The diction throughout this piece sets a really dark tone. "Unmarked" is used to describe the vehicles in which youth were forced into by the police force. Typically, police cars are marked so people who see them may get a sense of security and protection. However, when a car is unmarked it gives people quite the opposite feeling; secretive, scared, helpless. Other words such as beating, used to describe the police officers actions, are brutal words. "Beating" reinforces the the corruption of the government and police force. Finally, "round-up" is used to when the article is talking about the police gathering the young children and putting them into vehicles. Round-up almost has a casually tone; it makes it seem like this activity is not really that uncommon in this part of the country. 



http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2011/11/20/48097/jerry_sandusky_scandal_joe_paterno_f

If you follow the news at all, you are well aware of what has happened at Penn State University over the past decade. Allegedly, Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator for the football team, sexually abused multiple victims. Many people around the world are furious with two people besides Sandusky himself; Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary. McQueary testifies that he actually witnessed Sandusky sodomize a young child in the locker room facility of the Penn State football team. After witnessing this rape, McQueary went called his dad and notified Joe Paterno the next day;  he did not go to the police. Alyssa Bonk uses techniques to show her displeasure with the way McQueary and Penn State handled the situation and what she thinks should happen.

There is some very strong diction throughout this article. Some words Bonk even took the time to bold. Three words are bold-faced, protect, police and proper. Bonk bolds proper because she is furious that McQueary notified Joe Paterno, not the police, who are the proper authorities. What is truly mind boggling about this whole case is that McQueary is still an employee of the university while "JoPa" is not when they both did the same exact thing. This frustration with the university can be seen in Bonk's article when she bolds protect. The university placed McQueary on leave with pay because he was receiving death threats due to the way he handled the whole situation.

At one point during the article Bonk writes, "you walk into a shower and you see a man molesting a young boy." This is an extremely graphic sentence. This imagery is extremely important to the overall piece because it helps evoke anger in the audience. The audience cannot possibly comprehend that McQueary was able to witness such a horrific event and simply walk away. A few sentences Bonk describes what she would of done if she was placed in this situation, "You grab the perp by the neck, you get the boy to safety, and then you drag that maniac to the nearest police station." It does not take an expert to sense the anger in this portion of the text. "Drag the maniac to the nearest police station," is extremely vivid and gives the image of Bonk marching across campus with Sandusky at gunpoint. This imagery helps evoke anger in the audience.


The detail in this article help the reader comprehend how many people this scandal actually effected. Beyond the obvious traumatic events that Sandusky put the alleged victims through, many people who are innocent of the actually sexual harassment are effected by this scandal. The details that Bonk uses about how much Joe Paterno gave back to the university help emphasis what this scandal has truly done in the football world of Penn State. Joe Paterno dedicated the vast majority of his life to the school and also donated millions of dollars to build buildings such as a library. The fact that he can go from being revered as one of the best coaches of all time to being fired overnight helps the outsider understand how anger people are that these events and Paterno allegedly knew about them. 


The Penn State scandal has brought out mixed emotion from people across the world. This article by Bonk helps illustrate one point of view.







http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/03/111003fa_fact_gawande
In this article, Atul Gawande argues that surgeons themselves should also have coaches. He makes many references to professional athletes who have coaches throughout the duration of their careers. Atul is questioning if surgeons had coaches would they continue to get better and avoid the inevitable plateau.

Diction choices such as peak and plateau suggest that once doctors get to a certain point, or "peak," they have no where to go but the wrong way. Things can only get worse and their skills they have acquired over many years of training will slowly begin to deteriorate. Dr. Gawande also uses the word "beating" when describing his average percent of complications. This is another reference to the on-going sports analogy he uses throughout the essay. When you beat a team, you prove that you are better then them during that one game. Well, Dr. Gawande is exactly "beating" any team, he is just performing his operations more successfully than the majority of other doctors.

When describing a typical procedure, Gawdande uses some strong imagery to drive home the point that a lot goes into an operation, and if you don't have a coach constantly over your shoulder screaming there is a higher chance of you forgetting something or making a mistake. "Infection turns it into a fat, bloody, inflamed worm that sticks to everything around it" paints an incredible vivid image in my mind. This really drives home the point that if one mistake happens, something can go terribly wrong. In the last paragraph Atul describes playing tennis on a hot warm summer daily casually. At this point, he is obviously past his "peak" in tennis. This image helps relate to his peak in surgery because it gives the sense that after doctors hit their peak, they only perform operations casually and are not as intense about them as they need to be. Having a coach would certainly change that.

There is an incredible amount of detail in this piece that reinforces Atul's claim that doctors having coaches would possibly improve their performance. About half way through the article he lists a whole bunch of things that could go wrong on a simple procedure on how you would have to deal with it. It would be extremely hard to be able to process so much information in an extremely dire situation but you simply have to do it if you want the patient to be okay. Doctors coaches could help with this. Having a "coach" in the operation room would allow for someone very experienced to air to surgeon in all situations. Eventually, the surgeon could possibly become experienced enough to become "coach." Having coaches would help avoid the plateau that Atul is talking about. Other details such as surgeons peak at a very old age compared to athletes who peak before they are even 30 contribute to the fact that maybe that is the reason that doctors do not currently having a coach.

Overall Atul Gawande using diction, imagery and details to support his argument that doctors peak at a later age than other professions and maybe having a coach could eliminate the plateau he is talking about.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris?currentPage=all

In this article David Sedaris talks about the undecided voters in the 2008 election. He cannot comprehend how undecided voters have not made up their mind or agree with one candidate on one issue but not other issues.

The diction David Sedaris uses in this article makes it quite clear he has strong feelings about people who are undecided. A word such as "layman" suggest that David is referring to those who have not made up their minds as lazy, uneducated people. Mr Sedaris goes on to use the word "platter" and "shit" which shows us that Mr Sedaris thinks that although one candidate can look good on a nice, expensive platter, in the end it is still shit. Relating this back to the diction of layman, David is implying that only educated men and women with professions are capable of seeing through the platter to what a candidate truly is; in David's mind, shit. Later in the article, David uses the word "importance" when he is talking about how he likes democracy. When David uses this word he is currently voting during a president election at the young age of 11. Using "important" in a casual tone means that the elections that decide the president of the United States are actually important and something people should not be indifferent about, but rather should do their research and make up their minds.

The numerous details in David's essay help us visualize what he thinks about presidential elections. The details of him voting for a random candidate in an election at a young age enlightens us that David most likely gets the hatred for undecided voters from his family. His mom clearly had no option in the election and allowed her 11 year old son to randomly chose a president. Ironically, that president was later impeached. Another detail, the ensuing fight between his parents, sheds more light on David's strong dislike for undecided voters. His parents got in a fight because his mom had no care for the election.

 This essay paints many vivid images in our mind that help us understand David's feelings and motives behind this essay. The paragraph about David sitting on a plane and the flight attendant comes up and asks David if he wants a platter of chicken or shit paints a very, very clear image in our mind. This "scene", if you will, makes the reader understand how clear and obvious David thinks the choice is between two candidates. The final couple of paragraphs in the play during which his mom and dad are fighting through their kids gives the reader a hint about why David feels so strongly about presidential elections. He thinks that randomly casting a vote is incredibly stupid in an extremely important situation. In fact, when he randomly chose his vote, that president went on to be impeached. 







http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/11/911.commemoration/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

After a decade of grief and recovery, nation remembers 9/11, is an article on CNN.com about how Americans have responded and acted in the 10 years since the attacks on the United States.

     David Ariosto and Laura Dolan paint a vivid picture in our mind when they are describing the scene in New York City 10 years after the attacks on the World Trade Centers. The opening sentence of the article, "Thousands gathered Sunday morning at New York's Ground Zero and stood still in silence, some crying as they listened to the names of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks read aloud," gives us a real sense of the feeling and mood of New York. The sentence paints a somber picture that is similar to a funeral. In a way, today is a funeral. People across the country are coming together to remember the 2,977 lives that terrorists stole from America.
     Later in the article, the imagery switches from that of a funeral to that of a war zone, "Roads near Ground Zero were blocked and police checkpoints for both vehicles and pedestrians surrounded the memorial." In a war zone, typically roads are either blocked or are patrolled by the forces controlling the territory. The purpose of road blocks and checkpoints are to make sure that all vehicles and people going in and out of the area are documented and also to make sure that nothing dangerous is entering the territory. "...heavy security presence permeating the area in lower Manhattan..." is yet another quote the allows us to picture the scene in NYC today. Police and other authorities are swarming the city looking out for an indication of yet another attack on innocent lives. Dolan and Ariosto describe the scene to us flawlessly and really allow us to imagine what it looks and feels like inside the Big Apple.
      There is an extreme contrast of feeling today, 10 years after the 9/11 attacks. Ariosto and Dolan use the word "solemn" numerous times throughout the article. It really drives home the mood.  The lost of almost 3,000 innocent lives is extremely devastating. However, there is also the feeling of unity. Despite the difference in Americans, all have one thing in common:10 years ago today we were attacked. President Obama used some very strong words to show the world that America is still here and prouder than ever. "...we refuse to live in fear." "...we remain vigilant." "Refuse" is a very strong word. When the president tells the world that Americans, "refuse to live in fear," it drives home the point that no matter what you do to our country and people, we will stand back up stronger than before.
     There are many details used by the authors that added to the article and really make you understand the devastation of 9/11. Throughout the article it has the times when certain events happened; "9:59 a.m., the time the South Tower collapsed." These details give us the sense of time and how quickly everything unfolded. Other details such as, "2,753 people died on two airplanes and on the ground when the planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers, causing their collapse," are necessary in the article to help us understand the destruction and devastation on September 11, 2001. Without these details, the article would feel bland and empty because people reading would not understand why today is such a big deal in American History.
     Ariosto and Dolan use diction, imagery and details to really get the readers involved in the article and to be able to understand, visualize the atmosphere, and feel the mood of New York City today.