http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/opinion/friedman-so-much-fun-so-irrelevant.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman
Thomas Friedman is very adamant that the U.S. keeps up with improving technology and innovations so that Americans can create new jobs to ensure that there remains a strong middle class. He emphasizes the vital importance of education, and the point he makes in this article is that American citizens should support candidates who promote the focusing of resources into combining "a university, an educated populace, a dynamic business community and the fastest broadband connections on earth" to keep up with globalization and create more middle class jobs. Friedman's criticism of the republican party candidates is clear from the title of his article. He implies that the candidates were amusing, but they made fools of themselves and cannot be taken seriously. At the beginning of his article, Friedman questions sarcastically, "What if the 2012 campaign were actually about the world in which we’re living and how we adapt to it?" implying that the candidates are avoiding or unaware of the real issues at hand. His purpose is to depict the candidates who don't agree with him as shallow and unfit to lead the U.S. in the globalizing world. After criticizing the candidates for not addressing the important issues he addresses them himself, which makes up most of the article. His purpose in beginning the article as a criticism of the Republican candidates is to attract people's interest so that they'll read and be persuaded by his ideas. Because the Iowa caucus was such a big event in the news, people would probably be more likely to read his article, which is actually about globalization and information technology, if it looked like it was about the Republican candidates. By comparing the importance of bandwidth and human intellectual capital now to that of water and raw materials in the 1800s and transportation and electricity in the 1900s, Friedman clarifies his vision of the importance of bandwidth (which I didn't realize could be important) and intellectual capital in maintaining a healthy middle class with new jobs that can compete with countries like South Korea. He moves on to support his claim with evidence, like "two billion people now on the Internet" and"35 zettabytes in 2020," showing the huge potential market, audience, and resource that the internet could be if Americans took full advantage of it and put resources into developing it. The simple statement "a zettabyte is a 1 followed by 21 zeros," contrasts with the unimaginably huge number and further emphasizes the scale on which Friedman's suggestion operates. After this impressive data, Friedman states one of his main points: "the more talented human capital, bandwidth and computing power you apply to that data, the more innovation you’ll get." His purpose in putting this idea after the idea, not putting it up front and then supporting it, is to move from the topics that should be the focus of 2012 campaigns to why those topics are important to the U.S. and the world, and finally to connect them to one of the themes of all of his writing: innovation to stay competitive in the globalizing world. Friedman then explains how the current policy of the U.S. is different from the policy he is suggesting and why he's right. By comparing the U.S. with South Korea, Friedman gives a concrete example of how much the U.S. is falling behind. His intention is to shock and appeal to the American competitive spirit, which hates to be less than the best. Leaving readers with this dissatisfaction, Friedman returns to the GOP candidates with the question “How do you think smart cities can become the job engines of the future, and what is your plan to ensure that America has a strategic bandwidth advantage?” This makes reads not only dissatisfied with the U.S.'s current policy, but also the focuses of the 2012 campaigns of the candidates. His purpose in making readers dissatisfied is to encourage them to promote a movement toward higher bandwidths and jobs focused on intellectual capital, moving toward his worldview of a society driven by innovation.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Help Wanted
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/opinion/sunday/friedman-help-wanted.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman
Friedman's main point in this article is that in the new globalized information climate, leaders cannot control the people under them because information is so readily available and able to be spread by anyone who wishes. People have more power, so leaders and managers have to work with the people under them in order for society to function smoothly. Companies, states, and individuals who are able to use the democratization of information to the best of their advantage with be the most powerful in the globalized world. He begins with a metaphor to compare fish in aquariums to countries. The point of his metaphor is that it is much easier to perform an action than to undo it, as shown in the major changes in the Middle East, where there is still uncertainty as to the future of the countries there. This metaphor interests the reader by explaining a difficult concept in simpler language. It supports Friedman's main idea because it shows that the democratization of information made every person in a country involved in changes in that country, so changes in every person would have to be reversed to undo a change. Friedman then progresses from the democratization of information to the democratization of expectations, "the expectation that all individuals should be able to participate in shaping their own career, citizenship and future, and not be constricted." This progression shows the movement of globalization to different ideas, and supports the part of Friedman's thesis that states that people are taking a more active role in the leadership of organizations that affect them. The negative example of Putin's power in Russia serves as a transition from the idea that people can create change with the democratization of information and expectations to how leaders should respond to regular people who begin to take an active role in larger organizations. This allows Friedman to move forward to the next part of his thesis: " ‘command and control’ — using carrots and sticks — to exert power over people is fast being replaced by ‘connect and collaborate’ — to generate power through people." Friedman puts this part of his thesis second because it states a major change in leadership that would be too radical to state upfront. However, the thesis where it is is effective because he leads up to it with an example that supports it, showing how it applies to the globalized world. Friedman's negative examples of Netflix and Coca Cola give a different type of evidence to support his argument, showing that his idea affects corporations as well as states. Friedman concludes by returning to the fish metaphor and the title, and including a call to action to leaders to adapt to the changes in the globalized world. Friedman believes that this change in leadership to work with people is important for maintaining order in our society, and his article shows his urgency in alerting people to the changes that globalization is continuously bringing to the world.
Friedman's main point in this article is that in the new globalized information climate, leaders cannot control the people under them because information is so readily available and able to be spread by anyone who wishes. People have more power, so leaders and managers have to work with the people under them in order for society to function smoothly. Companies, states, and individuals who are able to use the democratization of information to the best of their advantage with be the most powerful in the globalized world. He begins with a metaphor to compare fish in aquariums to countries. The point of his metaphor is that it is much easier to perform an action than to undo it, as shown in the major changes in the Middle East, where there is still uncertainty as to the future of the countries there. This metaphor interests the reader by explaining a difficult concept in simpler language. It supports Friedman's main idea because it shows that the democratization of information made every person in a country involved in changes in that country, so changes in every person would have to be reversed to undo a change. Friedman then progresses from the democratization of information to the democratization of expectations, "the expectation that all individuals should be able to participate in shaping their own career, citizenship and future, and not be constricted." This progression shows the movement of globalization to different ideas, and supports the part of Friedman's thesis that states that people are taking a more active role in the leadership of organizations that affect them. The negative example of Putin's power in Russia serves as a transition from the idea that people can create change with the democratization of information and expectations to how leaders should respond to regular people who begin to take an active role in larger organizations. This allows Friedman to move forward to the next part of his thesis: " ‘command and control’ — using carrots and sticks — to exert power over people is fast being replaced by ‘connect and collaborate’ — to generate power through people." Friedman puts this part of his thesis second because it states a major change in leadership that would be too radical to state upfront. However, the thesis where it is is effective because he leads up to it with an example that supports it, showing how it applies to the globalized world. Friedman's negative examples of Netflix and Coca Cola give a different type of evidence to support his argument, showing that his idea affects corporations as well as states. Friedman concludes by returning to the fish metaphor and the title, and including a call to action to leaders to adapt to the changes in the globalized world. Friedman believes that this change in leadership to work with people is important for maintaining order in our society, and his article shows his urgency in alerting people to the changes that globalization is continuously bringing to the world.
This is a Big Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-this-is-a-big-deal.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman
Friedman's main claim is that Obama's action in backing a new deal between the EPA and top U.S. automakers is a great move forward in moving the U.S. up to the level of Europe and Japan in environmental initiative. His worldview is based upon a globalized world, and he believes that to keep pace with the rest of the developed world, the U.S. must move forward toward a more environmentally friendly policy. He begins with a concession, agreeing with many readers that Obama has failed in many of his goals in making the U.S. more green. This is effective because it gains the trust of many of his readers and starts him off on the same side as the readers. By convincing people of the importance of this new plan, Friedman gains support for other green environmental policies. In the third paragraph, he contrasts the 2025 goal for emissions, 54.4 miles per gallon, with a short, emphatic sentence: "The current average is 27.5 m.p.g." This makes the current gas mileage, which many consider less significant than other problems of today, seem like an important problem. By presenting the problem as a serious failure, he gains the attention and concern of his readers. Friedman states his thesis about halfway through the article, after stating the billions of gallons of saving in oil and green house gas emissions. He waits that late to state his thesis because the first part of the article states his concession and the concrete savings the deal will bring, and it brings his readers to his side so that they'll agree with his thesis when he states it. Friedman uses mocking language to criticize the people in opposition to the bill in order to depict them as selfish, incompetent, and stagnant. Phrases like "Naturally, the E.P.A.-haters hate the deal" use mocking words like "naturally" and "haters" to show that the opposition are bigots who prevent change and "ignore the net savings to consumers, plus the national security, innovation, jobs, climate and health benefits." By connecting these changes that almost all Americans want with the deal, he depicts the deal in a positive light while demonizing the opposition. By gaining support for the deal and criticism of the opposition, Friedman makes his readers more inclined to support environmental legislation and deals, which he thinks are necessary for the U.S. to maintain its position in the globalized world.
Friedman's main claim is that Obama's action in backing a new deal between the EPA and top U.S. automakers is a great move forward in moving the U.S. up to the level of Europe and Japan in environmental initiative. His worldview is based upon a globalized world, and he believes that to keep pace with the rest of the developed world, the U.S. must move forward toward a more environmentally friendly policy. He begins with a concession, agreeing with many readers that Obama has failed in many of his goals in making the U.S. more green. This is effective because it gains the trust of many of his readers and starts him off on the same side as the readers. By convincing people of the importance of this new plan, Friedman gains support for other green environmental policies. In the third paragraph, he contrasts the 2025 goal for emissions, 54.4 miles per gallon, with a short, emphatic sentence: "The current average is 27.5 m.p.g." This makes the current gas mileage, which many consider less significant than other problems of today, seem like an important problem. By presenting the problem as a serious failure, he gains the attention and concern of his readers. Friedman states his thesis about halfway through the article, after stating the billions of gallons of saving in oil and green house gas emissions. He waits that late to state his thesis because the first part of the article states his concession and the concrete savings the deal will bring, and it brings his readers to his side so that they'll agree with his thesis when he states it. Friedman uses mocking language to criticize the people in opposition to the bill in order to depict them as selfish, incompetent, and stagnant. Phrases like "Naturally, the E.P.A.-haters hate the deal" use mocking words like "naturally" and "haters" to show that the opposition are bigots who prevent change and "ignore the net savings to consumers, plus the national security, innovation, jobs, climate and health benefits." By connecting these changes that almost all Americans want with the deal, he depicts the deal in a positive light while demonizing the opposition. By gaining support for the deal and criticism of the opposition, Friedman makes his readers more inclined to support environmental legislation and deals, which he thinks are necessary for the U.S. to maintain its position in the globalized world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)