Michael Moore response

Watching Moore’s documentary, I was captivated by the unfortunate downfall of the town of Flint. I felt several different emotions throughout the film as it explored all aspects of the situation. It was very sad to see the 30,000 something people of the town of Flint suddenly lose their jobs. With Flint’s pride in GM and their glorious town all crash abruptly I could feel the sense of grave emptiness that Moore was trying to convey. Yet, when the topic shifted to the cause of all the grief, Roger Smith, I became frustrated and ticked off. When Smith does not own up to what he has done and uses his assistants to just get rid of Moore, you want someone to put this guy in his place.

I think GM  is directly responsible for the economic downfall of Flint because they were the town’s source of life. The loss of 30,000 jobs is the main reason why the town’s economy fell apart and the residents were left to either scrounge for another job or be unemployed. The rest of the town’s businesses followed suit as they couldn’t survive in the town any longer.

Moore uses many rhetoric devices to get his point across and these tactics are what makes his films resonate so well. We see a ton of ethos because he is narrating the film with the information and facts that explain the clips and images we are watching. Pathos is very abundant, I think mostly when the guy is serving the eviction to the poor family in the end of the movie and the mother is screaming while the children are looking around confused. This is all happening on Christmas Eve and it keeps switching between this heartbreaking scene and Roger Smith’s joyous speech about the magic of Christmas. Logos is also used.. For example, when he speaks with all of the GM people to try to get to Smith,  he uses a lot of reasoning and lays out the clear situation for them yet they keep dodging it all.

Ehrenreich, Mantsios, and Moore share very common themes between them. They all convey this idea that the struggles of the working class are overseen by those higher up in the class system. Ehrenreich goes through a personal experience of delving into a minimum-wage life and shows how you don’t know what it’s like until you’re in it. Mantsios proves that the top 1 percent are in so much control of the economy and those at the bottom are totally ignored. Moore gives us these images when we see the contrast between Roger Smith and his CEO lifestyle and the poor people that were left in the dark by his decisions.

"Class in America"

I don't necessarily believe that Mantsios is making a case that the wealthy are exploiting the poor. It does not seem that it is the wealthy people's fault. From the quotes from the rich women in the text, it does not seem as if they really understand any correspondence between their status and that of the rest of the lower income world. I think Mantsios is trying to make awareness about the skewed sense of reality that our country has. We can turn on our TVs and see the glamorous lives of rich celebrities and reality stars and think that that is the essence of America, but it is not. In the media, we are more influenced by that top 1 percent, than the other 99 percent of people to the point where you forget about the poverty amoungst and near ourselves.

I think Mantsios would like to see change in government and how the economy is ran. It would be beneficial to find ways to close that huge wealth ratio of 12 to 1, by initiating opportunities for lower class people to make a change in their lives and build more substantial careers.

Modern Family Response

Modern Family does a great job of breaking the barrier of making atypical family structure more mainstream in society and culture. By weaving three different family structures together in one show they are able to achieve an understanding that however a family is constructed, they all have similar issues, problems, and feelings in life in such a light and hilarious way. 

I think that the show would not have been accepted ten years ago, and maybe a bit ahead of it’s time five years ago. Society is now at a point where we are most aware of the evolution family structure is making. Gay marriage is at forefront of the countries debates and divorced couples are more present than ever. The way Modern Family conveys these emerging family structures is so equally seamless that ten years ago I don’t think people would have accepted such “alternate” lifestyles on TV as if they were “normal”. Today, the show is so popular because everyone is craving that idea of freeness and acceptance. 

I feel that the show somewhat portrays family life in America. I think that there are plenty of relatable connections that real families can make with the show like the lessons about family that come out of each episode. Though overall, the families are a bit grandiose at times. It is kind of obvious that the families are more upper-class which may make some people a bit more disconnected. A show that I think may more accurately portrays the everyday middle-class family is the show that comes on before Modern Family, called The Middle. Although they have a typical nuclear family set-up, they do a great job of showing the flaws and everyday issues that a working family has and making them so real and recognizable. From the dirty house to the broken washing machine to always showcasing the imperfections of parent-kid-family relationships in a hilarious way.

"What is Marriage?"

I thought “What is Marriage” was a good article, that showed a lot of evolution from beginning to end. At the start, it explains the very basic details of marriage and showing its roots in history. He chronicles how marriage has grown and taken place in society since centuries ago when it was barely recognized. He talks about the meaning and benefits of being married and how it makes life much easier and rewarding. Soon he gets to the purpose of the writing which is to show that the evolution of marriage is now at a stand-still as gay couples can still no longer get married. I liked how he gave a detailed glimpse into multiple gay couples who are affected by the restriction. It helped convey his message relatable and emotional in otherwise a primarily dry and informational article.

I think that this article did need more for the audience to become attached to earlier on in the text, but I understand his meaning behind writing in that style. He wanted to maximize the abundance of reasons why marriage is needed between two people in love. He wanted to capitalize on these reasons without bringing up his message just yet and get the reader conscious about the complete idea of marriage so that it would back up his purpose. Rather than opening with the couples stories immediately, he made the reader remember all the opportunities married people may take for granted when detesting gay marriage. In the end, he used an effective mix of fact and emotion to create a full understanding of the need for equal rights to marry.

Labels

I have been given multiple labels throughout grade school and high school. Primarily, I was known as the “nice guy” for many years. I tried to be friends with everyone and not cause any kind of conflict or drama that others did. This label isn’t a problem for me and I don’t try to defy it because I think that being a good person is rewarding in many ways and makes people look at you with respect. I want to continue being the “nice guy” because it makes life more peaceful and more fulfilling. I also have been labeled the “over-achiever” by friends and teachers, because for some assignments and projects I put a lot of work into it to make it the way I wanted it to be. I think that this label isn’t really accurate. I am more of a perfectionist and it sometimes can be frustrating to feel like I have to work so much when it probably isn’t required. The label has made me feel like I needed to work harder on everything in the future to stay at certain standard of my previous work otherwise. I also have also occasionally been labeled as “boring” in grade school and early high school. This would hurt me a bit because I know that isn’t true yet I was shy and that sometimes restricted me from loosening up around new people that I hadn’t been close with. This led me to at certain times try to stand out and be crazy just to show new people that I am fun to be around. But, when I tried doing this, it wasn’t natural and didn’t work. All of these labels have definitely formed my identity and probably are large chunks of it. Furthermore, I think they have currently helped me recognize who I am and become aware when I stray away of just being me and doing what I want to do.