David Brooks, opinion and editorial writer for The New York Times, is an effective writer because he gives an introduction, then an idea he may or may not agree with, and finally supports or rebuts it with his personal opinions and logic. Hs suggestions, based on his logic, are reasonable.
As a response to the current global incidents of swine flu, or Influenza A H1N1, Brooks wrote an editorial that supported certain actions for controlling the wide spread of the virus. The article, entitled “Globalism Goes Viral,” uses the swine flu as an example of occurrences that should be responded to with certain measures.
Brooks begins the article with “In these post-cold war days, we don’t face a single concentrated threat.” The automatic response is one of fear. Concentrated threats imply the minimal, if any, amount of spread to other regions of the world. The world “single” adds to that panicked feeling; the realization that globalism has allowed the interaction and exchange of virtually EVERYTHING hits deep in our bloodstream. The article continues to support his first sentence for three paragraphs. He continues to use the word “we” freely and there is no doubt, he believes this not only an important we, but an apparent we. Had he used a less impersonal word than “we,” we wouldn’t feel the immediate connection to the rest of the globe.
As the article develops, he responds to a proposed policy of a global group brought together to respond to the globalized threats, (a body that may or may not focus on centralized power). “If we had a body like that, we wouldn’t be seeing the sort of frictions that are emerging from today’s decentralized approach.” Brooks could have used a number of words other than friction such as conflict, resistance, tension, hostility, disagreement, etc. However, the word friction could be seen as appropriate in context. Friction suggests the possibility of fire, a rapidly spreading problem for those in the immediate surrounding areas; just as the fire has the ability to spread, so too do pandemics like the swine flu.
However, he refutes this proposal and supports a more decentralized approach despite the arguments made previously in favor of centralized action by G. John Ikenberry. He asserts that decentralized approaches are more effective because local authorities and members of society bond to overcome the difficulties faced in their own communities. “Power would be wielded by officials from nations that are far away and emotionally aloof from ground zero.” A centralized approach would mean that proposals and actions would be equal in all parts of the world. Regions however, vary within countries and states; global differences are inevitable and quite large. The words “emotionally aloof” are powerful because they highlight the indifference of these action groups. Aloof also indicates the superiority of these assemblies versus local groups.
He also describes the necessity of being “flexible” in our response because the dilemma is “flexible.” The word flexibility is rarely used for viruses—adaptable or ever-changing seem more fitting. Brooks uses this word to personify swine flu. Globalization has allowed these incidents to become as unpredictable as humans, a fearful notion to say the least. Our reaction however, can adequately overcome these perils as long as decentralized groups exist.
Check out Noam Chomsky’s views on globalization. His comparison to the spread of drugs and its dangers can be applied to the spread of diseases.
As a response to the current global incidents of swine flu, or Influenza A H1N1, Brooks wrote an editorial that supported certain actions for controlling the wide spread of the virus. The article, entitled “Globalism Goes Viral,” uses the swine flu as an example of occurrences that should be responded to with certain measures.
Brooks begins the article with “In these post-cold war days, we don’t face a single concentrated threat.” The automatic response is one of fear. Concentrated threats imply the minimal, if any, amount of spread to other regions of the world. The world “single” adds to that panicked feeling; the realization that globalism has allowed the interaction and exchange of virtually EVERYTHING hits deep in our bloodstream. The article continues to support his first sentence for three paragraphs. He continues to use the word “we” freely and there is no doubt, he believes this not only an important we, but an apparent we. Had he used a less impersonal word than “we,” we wouldn’t feel the immediate connection to the rest of the globe.
As the article develops, he responds to a proposed policy of a global group brought together to respond to the globalized threats, (a body that may or may not focus on centralized power). “If we had a body like that, we wouldn’t be seeing the sort of frictions that are emerging from today’s decentralized approach.” Brooks could have used a number of words other than friction such as conflict, resistance, tension, hostility, disagreement, etc. However, the word friction could be seen as appropriate in context. Friction suggests the possibility of fire, a rapidly spreading problem for those in the immediate surrounding areas; just as the fire has the ability to spread, so too do pandemics like the swine flu.
However, he refutes this proposal and supports a more decentralized approach despite the arguments made previously in favor of centralized action by G. John Ikenberry. He asserts that decentralized approaches are more effective because local authorities and members of society bond to overcome the difficulties faced in their own communities. “Power would be wielded by officials from nations that are far away and emotionally aloof from ground zero.” A centralized approach would mean that proposals and actions would be equal in all parts of the world. Regions however, vary within countries and states; global differences are inevitable and quite large. The words “emotionally aloof” are powerful because they highlight the indifference of these action groups. Aloof also indicates the superiority of these assemblies versus local groups.
He also describes the necessity of being “flexible” in our response because the dilemma is “flexible.” The word flexibility is rarely used for viruses—adaptable or ever-changing seem more fitting. Brooks uses this word to personify swine flu. Globalization has allowed these incidents to become as unpredictable as humans, a fearful notion to say the least. Our reaction however, can adequately overcome these perils as long as decentralized groups exist.
Check out Noam Chomsky’s views on globalization. His comparison to the spread of drugs and its dangers can be applied to the spread of diseases.
No comments:
Post a Comment