Below is a link to a recent LA Times Op-Ed. The writer, Jonah Goldberg, makes an interesting claim using several rhetorical techniques we have studied. Again, please identify the claim and the rhetorical devices. Additionally, tell me what you think of his assertion. Do you agree or disagree? why?
Responses due by Wednesday December 9th at midnight.
Thanks!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg1-2009dec01,0,6017988.column
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the article the author uses sarcasm, symbolism, and comparison to express the dangerous effects intellectual hypocrites have on our governmental issues, such as laws, reforms, and economical matters. The author compares the threat moral hypocrites to the threats of intellectual hypocrites. Goldberg states the real issue with moral hypocrisy is more so the offence of being a hypocrite rather than the act you committed. For instance, during the Obama Presidential Campaign, President Obama was in favor of pulling the troops out of Iraq. Now he is being considered a hypocrite based on the current decision to send more troops to the war. Civilians aren't basing his decision on logic but more so on morality.
ReplyDeleteWhere as with intellectual hypocrites the main concern is how can we put our faith, trust, and government in the hands of these so called "geniuses" when they can barely complete the simplist of task. This is where I would have to concur with the author's notion. This reminds me of how I feel about the war in Iraq. Personally I feel it is hard for the United States ,as a country, try and fix another country when we have issues and concerns we need to tend to back home. It just makes me wonder if the trust we gives these intellectual hypocrites really deserving. I rather someone go back on their morals rather than someone who is insuficient in decision making and planing of simple task, when designated rigorous and important tasks.
-Ayrica Sawyer
Jonah Goldberg's claim is that Americans have placed too much emphasis on moral hypocrisy, and instead should be focused on intellectual hypocrisy. Intellectual Hypocrisy is " is believing you are smart enough to run other peoples' lives when you can barely run your own". The author elaborates on his position through the use of a sarcastic voice, understatements,anecdotal examples, personalization, and the most common is the use of metaphorical devices such as,"[Many Liberals] are geniuses, with SAT scores so high you could get a bloody nose just looking at them". Moral hipocrisy is expected of individuals and it is old news, Intllectual Hipocrisy should be exposed more often.
ReplyDeleteWhile the exposure of intellectual hipocrisy may be helpful to some, I believe that the exposure of moral hipocrisy is just as important if not more important than the exposure of intellectual hipocrisy. However in some cases, both intellectual and moral hipocrisy are present for exposure. An example of this is the famous Watergate scandal. President Nixon violated the moral implications attached to the role of a presidency in holding the skewed belief that he was above the law; because according to Nixon, "If the president does it, it's not illegal". Also, parading the idea that Nixon could actually be succesful in a cover up hiding the break-in of Watergate expresses the overall overestimation of his intellectual capability. Therefore, I believe that moral hipocrisy should continue to be exposed to the public, as well as intellectual hipocrisy.
This author uses great sarcasm and syntax, like in the first paragraph when she abruptly interrupted the sentence to emphasize her level of surprise, by stating "gasp!" This creates an interactive relationship between the paper and the reader. She also uses metaphors and understatements. Jonah Goldberg's claim is that liberals, unlike conservatives, believe they have the ability to take charge of everything, when in fact they can barely complete their own simplistic tasks.
ReplyDeleteThis concept of intellectual hypocrisy is common for many people. For example, people -- like, I don't know, Taylor Johnson -- may say that I have the mindset of someone who believes that they can instruct an extensive math course, yet cannot comprehend that homework is to be done at home. Isolating liberals as the main perpetrator of this concept is completely acceptable, when knowing their erratic history. Liberals often tend to change their beliefs, while conservatives are firm in their values, not often swayed by public opinion. This constant shift of beliefs puts forth the notion that liberals cannot succeed in expected tasks, like choosing a unified viewpoint, therefore they do not have the ability to take on a huge projects that are not proven to be a success, based on their past actions.
Jonah Goldberg's claim is that too much focuses is placed on moral hypocrisy instead of intellectual hypocrisy. Goldberg catogorizes moral hypocrisy as something that is focused more on conservatives because they, "uphold morality more publicly, making them richer targets." Everytime they preach about the evils of an action and are caught breaking their golden rule they are crucified in public. But on the other hand intellectual hypocrisy, that more commonly falls in the laps of liberals is rarely mentioned. "Many are geniuses, with SAT scores so high you could get a bloody nose just looking at them." They hypocrisy comes in when these geniuses fail to complete the simplest task that should be, "childs play" for them.
ReplyDeleteThrough sarcasim, innuendos, and amusing stories Goldberg bring up the basic argument of conservatives vs. liberals. He argues that conservatives are made examples of everytime they break their moral code but intellectuals are all but ignored when they have a laps in judgment. I agree with Goldberg, intellectual hypocrisy is overlooked all too much while moral hypocrisy is publicly shunned. Everyone makes mistakes, it is impossible to be perfect, but shouldn't everybody suffer the same consiquences? It is not fair that one group of hypocrites is severly punished, while the others slide by. Justice for all! Whether moral or intellectual hypocricy let a light be shined on everyones blunders.
In Jonah Goldberg's Intellectual hypocrites threaten us all, the writer puts forth the notion that too much importance is placed upon moral hypocrisy instead of intellectual hypocrisy. The article presents the idea that the politicians we, as Americans, put our trust in may be undeserving. Our leaders promise many things, but cannot deliver simply because they cannot even control the problems in their own home. Goldberg implements the use of many rhetorical devices such as wittiness, sarcasm, and uses them to not only portray the seriousness of his topic, but also present his opinions in a more informal tone that the reader can directly relate to.
ReplyDeleteHis argument is valid in saying that there needs to be more exposure of intellectual hypocrisy, but I feel that there needs to be a solid exposure of both. Goldberg describes moral hypocrisy as someone 'saying what values people should live by while failing to follow them themselves' and intellectual hypocrisy as someone 'believing they are smart enough to run other peoples' lives when you can barely run your own'. In some instances, both of these faults are present in politicians some Americans put trust in, for example Sarah Palin. As a strong supporter for abstinence being taught in schools, Palin couldn't even teach her own daughter that value, seeing as how her daughter was only 17 and pregnant during the McCain Palin campaign. Palin showed both moral and intellectual hypocrisy, which proves that there needs to be a full balanced exposure of both of these.
In "Intellectual Hypocrites Threaten Us All" written by Jonah Goldberg, his claim puts forth the notion that Intellectual hypocrisy is considered the main focus instead of the actual problem itself. Goldberg uses rhetorical devices such as sarcasm and hyperbole, he say's "with SAT scores so high you could get a bloody nose just looking at them. But you wouldn't ask one to run a car wash." He means how can our government be so smart and intelligent but they can barley do simple things like run a car wash, but it is stated in a more exaggerated sarcastic tone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Goldberg's assertion because our government is a prime example. Obama claimed that he would bring our troops back home but now he has made the decision to send more. For this he is being considered a hypocrite because he said and believed one thing but did the opposite.
- Tara Harris.
The claim in Jonah Goldberg's post is that Americans emphasis on moral hypocrisy has outweighed the more important intellectual hypocrisy. The author uses sarcasm, hyperboles, and comparison to express his opinion on the issue at hand. He defines Intellectual Hypocrisy as “believing you are smart enough to run other peoples' lives when you can barely run your own.” Jonah Goldberg's accuses many liberals of having this quality. He claims that many liberals are unable to complete tasks that should be extremely easy for them. An example of his belief is Senator George McGovern. “The senator, 1972 presidential nominee and college professor thought he could run a vast, technologically sophisticated, continental nation with a diverse population and an entrepreneurial culture. Then, after leaving Washington, he bought an inn in Connecticut ……running an inn should have been child's play. But it went belly up before the end of the year,” This quote supports the notion that many liberals are unable to do task’s that they should consider ‘child’s play’
ReplyDeleteI believe that the exposure of moral hypocrisy is as important as exposing intellectual hypocrisy. I do not believe that we should focuses solely on exposing conservative’s moral hypocrisies when the opposite form is also present. I think that everyone should be held to the same level of critique. If ministers are to be called out for hiring prostitutes, than Charles B. Rangel should be called out for backing a sophisticated income tax surcharge when he barely knows how to pay his own taxes.
-Joseph Fiddmont
In this article Jonah Goldberg uses rhetorical devices such as metaphors, sarcasm, personification, and analogy in order to prove his claim that people should be focused more on intellectual hypocrisy than on moral hypocrisy. He states that while moral hypocrisy is an important issue when it comes to showing the moral flaws in our leaders, it is more important that we understand their intellectual flaws. When leaders think they know more than they actually do then they end up causing more harm than good, which is a major red flag when it comes to dealing with the state of crisis in America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the authors claim because it makes a lot of sense that we finally pay attention to these intellectual hypocrites. They make decisions for millions of people everyday and their decisions could lead to massive problems in the nation. Especially sense many of these people work in political office and have never had the real life experience needed to make these decisions.
The obvious rhetorical devices that Goldberg uses throughout his argument is sarcasm and hyperboles by stating that "Many are geniuses, with SAT scores so high you could get a bloody nose just looking at them. But you wouldn't ask one to run a carwash." He uses this to convey his argument that too much importance is placed on moral hypocrisy rather than intellectual hypocrisy. He continues to put forth the notion that we cannot fully put our trust into these people that "...can't manage the class schedule of three professors or run a meeting without it coming to blows or tears." which he succesfully conveys in a very sarcastic tone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the assertion that is put forth because it makes you think how can you put all of your trust into someone is barely able to run their own life but is steadily trying to run ours. This article really exposes some of things that we barely take into consideration.
-Re'Nada Smith
In the op-ed piece, “Intellectual hypocrites threaten us all”, writer Jonah Golderberg asserts that while cases of moral hypocrisy have always proved the most prized fodder for the press, it is intellectual hypo racy that should bear the brunt of our ire. Goldberg characterizes intellectual hypocrisy as a person, or more specifically a liberal’s belief that they are smart enough to run other peoples' lives when they can barely run their own.
ReplyDeleteWhile I share in Goldberg’s frustration; the notion that someone claiming to be able to solve global issues is simultaneously unable to navigate their own life is quite ridiculous, I don’t believe that intellectual hypocrisy trumps the moral sort, as moral hypocrisy generally involves more pointed & deliberate wrongdoing. Furthermore, I think everyone is a little guilty of intellectual hypocrisy. The reality of life is that our professional aspirations do not preclude us from personal mishaps.
The rhetorical devices I identified in Goldenberg’s piece were hyperbole, rhetorical questions, and expletive.
In this particular article, "Intellectual hypocrites threaten us all" written by Jonah Goldberg, the writer puts forth the notion that people (generally "smart liberals") use intellectual hypocrisy when they are doing certain things. Goldberg uses the rhetorical devices hyperbole and sarcasm. When he was discussing the issue of Rep. Charles B. Rangel running the Ways and Head Committee (which writes the tax code), he brings up a good point saying, "Yet he can't seem to figure out how to file his own taxes properly or, perhaps, legally." He is basically saying that Mr. Rangel can't possibly run his own Committee that involves writing the tax code if he can't even do his taxes properly. I agree with Goldberg's assertion because he provides accurate evidence to back up his point.
ReplyDelete- Jay Carter