essay 2 help

dont bid

English 12- Winter 2018

Essay #2

For this assignment, you are to select two readings (from the course) which you have found to be particularly interesting and discuss how the ideas and arguments that are found in one text can be applied to the other text. What is the relationship which you see between the two readings? What is the connection between these two texts? Are the arguments that are made in one reading relevant to the ideas found in the other? In what ways can they be applied? Are there any limitations in the extent to which the theory or argument of one writer can be applied to the ideas found in the other?

As you discuss the relationship between the two texts, the arguments and ideas of the authors should be accurately and thoughtfully depicted. Avoid broad generalizations—be sensitive to the positions of each writer.

Essay length: 3 pages, double-spaced

Font size: 12

We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint

By 

ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — Gen. 

Stanley A. McChrystal

, the leader of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was shown a PowerPoint slide in Kabul last summer that was meant to portray the complexity of American military strategy, but looked more like a bowl of spaghetti.

“When we understand that slide, we’ll have won the war,” General McChrystal dryly remarked, one of his advisers recalled, as the room erupted in laughter.

The slide

 has since bounced around the Internet as an example of a military tool that has spun out of control. Like an insurgency, PowerPoint has crept into the daily lives of military commanders and reached the level of near obsession. The amount of time expended on PowerPoint, the 

Microsoft

 presentation program of computer-generated charts, graphs and bullet points, has made it a running joke in the Pentagon and in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“PowerPoint makes us stupid,” Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, the Joint Forces commander, said this month at a military conference in North Carolina. (He spoke without PowerPoint.) Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who banned PowerPoint presentations when he led the successful effort to secure the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar in 2005, followed up at the same conference by likening PowerPoint to an internal threat.

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,” General McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward. “Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.”

In General McMaster’s view, PowerPoint’s worst offense is not a chart like the spaghetti graphic, which was

 first uncovered by NBC’s Richard Engel

, but rigid lists of bullet points (in, say, a presentation on a conflict’s causes) that take no account of interconnected political, economic and ethnic forces. “If you divorce war from all of that, it becomes a targeting exercise,” General McMaster said.

Commanders say that behind all the PowerPoint jokes are serious concerns that the program stifles discussion, critical thinking and thoughtful decision-making. Not least, it ties up junior officers — referred to as PowerPoint Rangers — in the daily preparation of slides, be it for a Joint Staff meeting in Washington or for a platoon leader’s pre-mission combat briefing in a remote pocket of Afghanistan.

Last year when a military Web site, 

Company Command

, asked an Army platoon leader in Iraq, Lt. Sam Nuxoll, how he spent most of his time, he responded, “Making PowerPoint slides.” When pressed, he said he was serious.

“I have to make a storyboard complete with digital pictures, diagrams and text summaries on just about anything that happens,” Lieutenant Nuxoll told the Web site. “Conduct a key leader engagement? Make a storyboard. Award a microgrant? Make a storyboard.”

Despite such tales, “death by PowerPoint,” the phrase used to described the numbing sensation that accompanies a 30-slide briefing, seems here to stay. 

The program

, which first went on sale in 1987 and was acquired by Microsoft soon afterward, is deeply embedded in a military culture that has come to rely on PowerPoint’s hierarchical ordering of a confused world.

“There’s a lot of PowerPoint backlash, but I don’t see it going away anytime soon,” said Capt. Crispin Burke, an Army operations officer at Fort Drum, N.Y., who under the name Starbuck wrote 

an essay about PowerPoint

 on the Web site 

Small Wars Journal

 that cited Lieutenant Nuxoll’s comment.

In a daytime telephone conversation, he estimated that he spent an hour each day making PowerPoint slides. In an initial e-mail message responding to the request for an interview, he wrote, “I would be free tonight, but unfortunately, I work kind of late (sadly enough, making PPT slides).”

Defense Secretary 

Robert M. Gates

 reviews printed-out PowerPoint slides at his morning staff meeting, although he insists on getting them the night before so he can read ahead and cut back the briefing time.

Gen. 

David H. Petraeus

, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and says that sitting through some PowerPoint briefings is “just agony,” nonetheless likes the program for the display of maps and statistics showing trends. He has also conducted more than a few PowerPoint presentations himself.

General McChrystal gets two PowerPoint briefings in Kabul per day, plus three more during the week. General Mattis, despite his dim view of the program, said a third of his briefings are by PowerPoint.

Richard C. Holbrooke

, the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was given PowerPoint briefings during a trip to Afghanistan last summer at each of three stops — Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif and Bagram Air Base. At a fourth stop, Herat, the Italian forces there not only provided Mr. Holbrooke with a PowerPoint briefing, but accompanied it with swelling orchestral music.

President Obama

 was shown PowerPoint slides, mostly maps and charts, in the White House Situation Room during the Afghan strategy review last fall.

Commanders say that the slides impart less information than a five-page paper can hold, and that they relieve the briefer of the need to polish writing to convey an analytic, persuasive point. Imagine lawyers presenting arguments before the Supreme Court in slides instead of legal briefs.

Captain Burke’s essay in the Small Wars Journal also cited 

a widely read attack on PowerPoint

 in Armed Forces Journal last summer by Thomas X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel, whose title, “Dumb-Dumb Bullets,” underscored criticism of fuzzy bullet points; “accelerate the introduction of new weapons,” for instance, does not actually say who should do so.

No one is suggesting that PowerPoint is to blame for mistakes in the current wars, but the program did become notorious during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq. As recounted in the book 

“Fiasco”

 by Thomas E. Ricks (Penguin Press, 2006), Lt. Gen. 

David D. McKiernan

, who led the allied ground forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, grew frustrated when he could not get Gen. 

Tommy R. Franks

, the commander at the time of American forces in the Persian Gulf region, to issue orders that stated explicitly how he wanted the invasion conducted, and why. Instead, General Franks just passed on to General McKiernan the vague PowerPoint slides that he had already shown to 

Donald H. Rumsfeld

, the defense secretary at the time.

Senior officers say the program does come in handy when the goal is not imparting information, as in briefings for reporters.

The news media sessions often last 25 minutes, with 5 minutes left at the end for questions from anyone still awake. Those types of PowerPoint presentations, Dr. Hammes said, are known as “hypnotizing chickens.”

Why Not Everyone Lilres PowetPoint

…………a’

Unless you’re RipVanWinkle’ you’ve likely sot through
more thon your shore of Power-

Point presentotions; odds ore you’ve creoted some
of them lf you haven’t’ don’t worry You

willbeforegroduating,especiollyilyou’temajoringindisciplinessuchosbusiness’com-
municotions,orengineeringthotpreporesstudentsfortheworkpioce’Here’wepresent
twoessoysthotevo]uotethelikelyeftectsofPowerPointonhowwecommunjcote—ond
howwethjnk.AjthoughGeoflreyNunbergdoesn,tc]ojmthotPowerPointmeonsthede.
c,r.ne oI western civilization,he rs quick to por’nt

out some of jts (potentjol) pjtfo]ls’ citingr

NASAi]investigotionoftheCo]umbicrshutt]edisosterosevidence,CliveThompsonis
blunter: PowerPoint mokes you dumb’

Nunbergisoconsu,ltingprofessoroflinguisticsotstonfordUniversityondchoir
oftheUsogePonelfortheAmericqnHeritogeDictionory’Theouthorofseverolbooks’
mostrecentiyTheWoyWeTolkNow(200])ondTheFutureoftheBook(j996),hercgulaily
jsfeoturedoniheNPFplogrlomFreshAirondpublishescommentoriesjntheNewYork

Times. The Trouble with powerpoint origino.lly oppeored
in the business magazineFor-

tune, in December 1999.

CliveThompsonwriiesontechnologyfortheNewYorkTimes’Wired’ondNews’
drry. In 2002,he wos o KnightScience-‘lourno.hsm Fe.llow ot

M/T PowerPoint Mckes You

Dumb origino lly oppeored in the New York Times in 2003′

GEOFFREY NUNBENC

The Trouble with PowerPoint

STIDES RULE

You’ve got to hand it to scott McNecrly-he never misses an opportunity to try
to stick it to Bill Gotes. A couple oI yecrrs ago the sun Microsystems cEO
went so lcrr qs to try to ban the use oI powerpoint ct sun, cloiming thqt em-
ployees were wqsting colosscl cmounts oI time using the Microsolt soltwcrre
to prepcre slides.

It wos q dromatic gesture, but this is one tide thct isn’t qbout to roll bock
on commqnd. PowerPoint crnd other presentqtion softwqre cre de rigrueurl
now wherever business people meet to communicote . . . well, I wcrs cbout to
soy “fcce to face,” but that isn’t quite qccurqte when everybodys storing crt
the screen. The technology hos even credted q new unit oI -“o”,rr. for met-
ing out cccess to senior mqncglement. It used to be that you got ten minutes
o{ c CEOs time; now you get three slides to mqke your pitch.

The cbility to prepcrre c slide presentotion hcrs become cn indispenscble
corporote survival skill. Ronk novices cqn stqrt with the templotes thcrt come
with the soltwore-“Reporting Progress” (Kcndinsky2-style blue and red rec_
tongles) or “communiccting Bad News” (c suggestive shade of brown). But
most mcncrgers hqve come to realize thot slides crre too importont to pick off
the rack. So managers hqve come up to speed-remcrrkcbly quickly.

Corporcte types whose interest in mediq aesthetics wcs once limited to
wctching siskel cnd Ebert hcrve now become crdept crt discussing the use of
((rcqne Iilmic effects like builds, dissolves, ond wipes. or if you’re too busy or
loo old to leqrn those new tricks, you can use the postmodern ploy of qppro-
priotion-cr strctegy fqvored by senior mqncrgers. Employees with cr portlolio
,l good slides con find themselves cs much in demcnd as o kid with c Nolcn
llyon rookie card.

whct is the eflect oI oll this? some soy the presentction soltwcrre explo- s
rion is port oI a genercl decline in public speaking-os Stcnford prolessor
,[ communicqtions cliff Noss puts it, “Try to imcgine the’I hove q dreqm,

I de rigueur indlspensobie, compulsory, required (French).
I Wcssily Kcndinsky (1866-1g44) Russion-born obstroct pornter whose work oJten feotures
l,r, Jht colors ond geometric shopes.

r Chopter 3: Technology ond (versus?) Longucrge

speech in PowerPoint.” But then, it isn’t os if public specrking was exactly
flourishing in pre-PowerPoint corporations. And you hcrve to give the benelit

of the doubt to any technology thcrt promises to mcrke the overcrge corporote

speech a bit less numbing.
Whot’s troubling is the wcy thot slides hcrve begun to take on o life of

their own, cs if they no longer needed talking hecrds to specrk lor them. No
one qsks Ior

Conferences post the slides o{ their speokels’tcrlks; prolessors post the slides

oI their lectures; the clergy post slides of their sermons on the Web.

Moking sense of such slides in isolcrtion can be like trying to reconstruct

the social lile of Pompeii3 lrom the grclliti its inhabitants IeIt behind. But thctt
hosn’t stopped the {ormct from spreading to other genres, like the Web. The

slide qesthetic hos even mcrde inroads in the book, the last bastion oI con-
nected prose. The other dcy I went to the business section of c locol book-
store crnd stqrted opening books ot random. I hcrd to do this twelve times
belore I come to two lcrcing poges oI text thqt were uninterrupted by a sub-

heod, illustrction, figure, sidebor, or some other grophic distraction’
And like the book qnd other communiccrtions technologies of the pcst,

this one is hcrving its ellects on the structure of thought itself. The more Power-

Point presentqtions you prepqre, the more the world seems to pockoge itsell

into slide-sized chunks, broken down into bullet items or grouped in geomet-

ric potterns that hove come to hove almost talismonic {orce. A Iriend of mine

who works Ior cr lcrge Silicon Vcrlley compqny mqintcrins thcrt no proposcl

ccrn win mcnqgement buy-in until it has been reduced to three items plcced
olong the sides ol o tricrngle.

You could think oI oll this qs the New lllumination. In mqny wqys we’ve
become the most visuql culture since the High Middle Ages. Still, we probo-

bly don’t wont to toss out cll the crchievements o{ the oge o{ print. When you
move from connected text to butlet items you leove some uselul communiccr-

tive tools behind-verbs, Ior excrmple. And as lively cs o good slide show can

be, some ideos are better qbsorbed in o more leisurely. considered wcy, with

the oid of older technologies like on armchoir cnd c good recrding light.

3. Pompeii o lorge Itolion city thot wos completely destroyed by the volcono Mt. Vesuvius

in 79 c.r. Becouse of the speed wiih which the eruption occurred, much ol the city wos pre-

served in osh, providing us one ol the best orcheologlcol exomples of doily urbon Romcrn

li{e o{ thot period.

CLIVE THOMPSON

PowerPoint Mokes You Dumb

T N AUGUsr, the coJumbic Accident Investigction Bocrrd at NASA releqsed
I volume I ol its report on why the spoce shuttle croshed. As expected, ther ship’s foqm insulqtion wcrs the mqin cquse of the disoster. But the bocrd

rrlso lingered qnother unusucrl culprit: powerpoint, Microsoft’s well-known
“slidewqre” progrqm.

NASA, the board orgued, hqd become too reliqnt on presenting complex
rnformation via PowerPoint, instead oI by meons oI trcditioncrl ink-ond-poper
lechnicol reports. when NASA engrineers crssessed possible wing domoge
rluring the mission, they presented the lindings in q confusing powerpoint
:;lide-so crqmmed with nested bullet points ond irregulor short forms thcrt it
was neorly impossible to untcrngle. “It is eosy to understqnd how q senior
ruqnqger might reod this PowerPoint slide and not realize thot it oddresses cr
liie-threotening situation,” the bocrd sternly noted.

PowerPoint is the world’s most populor tool lor presenting informcrtion.
‘l’here qre 400 million copies in circulation, qnd olmost no corporcte decision
Itrkes plcce without it. But whct if Powerpoint is actuolly mcrking us
rtupider?

This yeor, Edwcrd rufte-the lqmous theorist oI informction presentcr-
lion-mqde precisely thct orgument in q blistering screedl colled rhe cogni-
/ive sty/e of PowerPoint. In his slim 28-poge pcmphlet, Tulte clcimed thct
Microsoft’s ubiquitous soltwqre lorces people to mutilate dctcr beyond com-
prehension. For excmple. the low resolution oI q powerpoint slide mecrns
llrct it usucrlly contcins only cbout 40 words, or bcrely eight seconds o{ reqd-
rrrg. PowerPoint qlso encourqgres users to rely on bulleted lists, q “Iaux qncr-
lyticol” technique, Tufte wrote, thct dodges the specker’s responsibility to tie
lris informqtion together. And perhops worst oI all is how powerpoint renders
.lrorts. Chorts in newspcpers like the WolI Street /ourncJ contqin up to 120 el-
“rnents on overctge, crllowing reqders to compcrre lorge groupings o{ dctcr.
lltrt, os Tufte lound, PowerPoint users typically produce chqrts with only I2
,’lements. Ultimotely, Tulte concluded, powerpoint is infused with “on otti-
lrrde oI commerciqlism thot turns everything into a scrles pitch.,,

Microsoft ofliciols, oI course, beg to differ. simon Marks, the product s
rr(rnoger for PowerPoint, counters thot TuIte is q fcn of “informqtion density,,,

screed o horongue, o piece of writing thot criticizes some subject, often tediousiy

l’/’,’, I Chopter 3: Technology qnd (versus?) Longuoge

shoving tons oI dcto qt crn audience. You could do thcrt with PowerPoint, he
scys, but it’s cr mqtter o{ choice. “II people were told they were going to hcve
to sit through an incredibly dense presentction,” he

Of course, given thot the weopons still haven’t been found, maybe Tulte
is onto something. Perhops PowerPoint is uniquely suited to our modern crge
ol obfuscotion-where mcrnipuloting Iocts is os important os presenting
them clearly. If you hove nothing to soy, moybe you need just the right tool to
help you not scry it.

5. Go to ond explore
ihe porody PowerPoint presentotion given
there. Whot ore the chcrllenges of dlstilling
prose into slide form? Whot is golned or
lost? Choose onother fomous text, moke
your own PowerPoint presentotion of it, ond
show it in class. Did ony of the presentotions
improve on the originol text? Why or
why not?

i –for \{,rtttng 1
7. You’ve probobly seen q few PowerPoint pre-

sentotions in your clcrsses. Do you find them
helpful? Interesting? Hove they mode leorn-

Why Not Everyone Likes PowerPoint u lTll

ing eosier? Why or why not? Is there o

| ;boultt’e i&6 1
l. In writing for o business oudience, Nunberg

criticrzes the use of PowerPoint ln business
presentotlons. Might he Ieel the some woy
obout ocodemic presentotions (closs lec-
tures, student presentotions, etc.)? Why or
why not? How might he olter his orgument
{or on ocodemic oudience? Whot evldence
would he likely present?

2. Nunberg quotes cr Stonford pro{essor who
osks people to “try to imogrne thcrt ‘l hove o
dreom’ speech in PowerPoint” (porogroph
5). Is thot o reosoncrble chollenge given the
context of this essoy? Why or why not? Whcrt
srmilorities ond differences ore there be-
tween orotory such crs Mortin Luther Klng
Jr.’s 1963 speech ond ihe business presento-
tions torgeted in Nunberg’s essoy?

3. ‘fhompson’s essoy concludes with the exom-
ple of Coiin Powell employing PowerPoint.
I Iovr does Thompson use this excrmple to
rncrke hrs finol point? Whot is thot point? To
rvhcrt extent do you ogree wtth his clcrim?
i’ixploin your recrsoning.

on la

4. How does PowerPoint shope the woys 1on-
guoge is used? How does it constroin whcrt
is possible? How does it oller new woys of
orgonizlng ond presenting lnformotion?
Why do Nunberg crnd Thompson cloim thot
it moy be infiuencing the woy we represent
knowledge-thot is, the woy we think?

5. Nunberg ond Thompson oren’t olone in
thelr dislike of PowerPoint. Edwcrrd Tufte, o
professor ot Yole University, who hos written
criticolly obout the inlluence of PowerPoint
on informotion design ond presentotion. Go
to Tufte’s Web site ot
, the
ccrrtooned photo thcrt you see of Soviet
troops morching before o stotue ol Stolin il-
lustrcrtes on essoy which is criticol of Power-
Point. Anolyze the cortoon ond its messoge.
Whot is Tufte soying obout PowerPolnt?
How does he use visuol elements to moke
his crrgument? Whot do Stolin ond his ormy
hove to do with PowerPoint? Why might
Tufte hove chosen thls imcrge to illustrote his
ideos?