Friday, March 11, 2011

"The Atomic Cafe": Rhetoric and Argument

By Mary Dlabaj

In all aspects of life, people we trust lie or withhold information from us. Your husband may bend the truth about how much money he spent at the toy store. Your kids may bend the truth about what they ate for lunch at school. Your boss or coworker may keep you in the dark about a raise they gave or got. Your wife may not tell you she went shopping. In all these cases, the lie or withheld information probably outweighed the argument or questioning it would have caused. “What you don’t know won’t hurt you,” or will it? In our society, the government does the same thing. They lie or withhold information that they think is on a need-to-know basis. These lies that the government tells us could be life or death. The point in question is: Should we trust the government to make these decisions on our behalf?

The documentary “The Atomic CafĂ©” questions this trust by pointing out that the government blatantly lied to the people of the United States about the effects of nuclear war. They want you to believe the government is  wrong in lying to us. They use only “found footage” in the film so viewers won't question whether what is being portrayed is real or not. For example, during a question and answer portion of the video, a woman asks’ “How far do you have to be from the blast to live through it?“ The man who answers says, “Lets take a twenty megaton surface burst…“ He says twenty mega ton rather then twenty million tons to make it seem smaller then it really is and then lies by saying, “You would have a good chance if you were twelve miles from the point of detonation.“ In reality, a twenty mega ton bomb would destroy about two thousand square miles of area around the blast. It would obliterate buildings and houses, contaminate food and water sources and kill most people. The filmmakers use this interview to prove that the government is lying since other footage proves that the blast would not allow people to survive who were only twelve miles away.



Using the “found footage” of the blasts, the filmmakers show how dangerous an atomic blast is to mankind. In Hiroshima, the land was completely flattened and people were dead. During the footage of Hiroshima, the filmmakers play audio over it. The audio jokes that the land “looked like Emmett Field after a double header with the Giants…” The filmmakers do this to show how lightheartedly the people of the United States were taking the use of the atomic bombs while the viewers of the documentary see the destruction with the joking audio.  They want the viewer to see how the media and government lied during times of destruction and death.  The man in the audio was flying over Hiroshima and actually saw the destruction, but the people in the United States couldn’t actually see it. They heard what had happened through his joking manner over the radio.  The filmmakers want you to believe that the joking manner technically withheld the actual truth from the people listening.  



Through all this destruction, people of the United States were taught the “duck-and-cover maneuver,” told to build fallout shelters and prepare survival kits. People were led to believe that these things would save them from an atomic blast. The filmmakers show all this because people were so accepting of these suggestions without any questioning.

In some way, all these points are lies or bending of the truth. The filmmakers are trying to make the viewer believe that government lies are wrong and that members of society should always be told the truth. On the contrary though, these points prove otherwise for me. The filmmakers use "duck-and-cover" footage along with footage of bomb blasts to prove that "duck-and-cover" was an outright lie to the people of the United States.  Obviously if a bomb blast destroys everything for miles around, covering up with a picnic blanker or hovering under a wooden desk would not save anyone from harm.  I think that no matter how silly “duck-and-cover” is, people thought it would help them in the case of an atomic bomb. It made them feel as though they were doing something to keep themselves from death. I know and you know it wouldn’t actually save any lives, but it kept people happy and away from constant worry, fear and questioning. I would not and do no want to live everyday in fear that I am going to die.  



Bomb shelters and survival packs of food and everyday essentials seemed to have the same affect. People proudly posted stickers on their homes to show that they were prepared with a bomb shelter in the severe case of attack by an atomic bomb. If this is what made them feel safe from harm, I say “Why not?” It kept people from living in constant fear and made them feel like they were doing something to change their possible destiny.

When the government gives too much information about any given subject, it makes its members of society question and possibly get angry and fight back. Without lying or withholding information, the government probably wouldn’t be able to keep the country safe. A billboard sign that was shown in the video said, “Talk means trouble, don’t talk.” This was shown by the government and means that too much information could fall into the wrong hands. This proves to me and should to you that the government wants to keep us safe and out of harms way even if they have to lie or withhold some information.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Rhetorical Analysis of The 1976 Republican Convention

Mary Dlabaj   
English 1302
Dr. Wolfe
Essay 1-Rhetorical Analysis

    In 1976, the Presidential elections were between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.  Ronald Reagan gave an on-the-spot speech at the Republican Convention after narrowly losing the Republican nomination. 
    Even though Ronald Reagan lost the election, his speech was very uplifting for the Republican Party and the country.  Obviously because he is speaking at a convention, his audience is fellow Republicans, but he went out of his way to speak to Democrats and Independents watching and listening elsewhere by saying, “…who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally, which I believe we can give them.”  By saying this, he was making them want to listen.  He was hoping to give them something they could argue with or agree with in their own rallies for the Presidential election in 1976.  He wants to reveal to the American Public the things that the Democrats have left unchanged during the forty years prior to this election.  He does not point out those things during his speech because this is the thing that he wants the Democrats to rally around in hopes that it will actually bring the American Public’s majority vote to the Republicans.  This is a very passive aggressive way to bring out the truth without actually saying anything himself.  During the speech, he spoke of a Time Capsule he was asked to write for.  It is planned to be opened in 2076, one-hundred years from that time.  He spoke of the things that he thinks would affect that time that both Republicans and Democrats alike would have to work on together for the Nation as a whole. 
    Ronald Reagan works from an emotional standpoint through out most of his speech.  First off, he is very proud that the people and Gerald Ford welcomed him and his wife with open arms and minds.  He even says that it is “a memory that will live in our hearts forever.”  He seemed very humbled even though he had just lost the nomination for the Republican Party.  He kept poised and smiled throughout the speech, nodding his head in thanks.  As he spoke about the Time Capsule that he had been asked to write for, you could tell it was very personal to him.  He said that as he was driving up the coast of  California with the Pacific to one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains to the other he thought how beautiful it was and if it would look like that in 100 years.  This is a very emotional thought that he shared and makes the audience know that he cared what our country would look like in 2076.  He painted a picture of his private thoughts for all of the country to see.
    Throughout the speech, Ronald Reagan used the Time Capsule as a catapult to put into perspective the things happening in the country at that time and what will happen to the country if the Government doesn’t uphold freedoms, and economy and wars.  He talked about the loss of freedom that would come to this country by Democratic rule.  He mentioned the invasion of privacy and rights, and the controls and restrictions on the economy that were challenges in 1976. Challenges of the time that the people in 2076 will know.  He pointed out that the powers of the world were against each other with missiles aimed to destroy the world we know and in 100 years, the people will know if those missiles were fired and if the country had met its challenges and if the people still had their freedom.  This is concern for the future by what was being done in the present.  He said, “…and if we failed, they probably won’t get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom and they won’t be allowed to talk of that or read of it.”  He wondered if the people in 2076 will be appreciative of what was done in 1976 or if they will know that they had been failed. 
    Ronald Reagan showed much concern for his country throughout his speech.  He firmly believed that what was done in 1976 would be of grave determination of what will happen in 2076.  He didn’t want to put off the responsibility on future presidents or government, but had “the right here, right now attitude.”  He didn’t blame past presidents for what was happening in the economy then, but wanted to embrace what the current parties could do to make it better for the present and future to come.