Mrs. Trudy Rubin

Trudy Rubin
Philadelphia Inquirer
March 2015

After scavenging the all-knowing Google and Wikipedia, information regarding Trudy Rubin's background is scarce to say the le
ast. What is known, however, is her most recent jobs and experiences. Graduating from the London School of Economics, Rubin dived into foreign and international politics, spending countless hours as a journalist for several newspapers (Moscow News and The Monitor and The Christian Science Monitor). She spends time frequently in areas of conflict such as the middle east and other Asian countries. Her dedication to her skills indicate a certain level of expertise unique to her. At the moment, she works for The Philadelphia Inquirer and comments on social and political issues in her Worldview column.

Mrs. Rubin is a valuable asset to The Philadelphia Inquirer's team of journalists. Much of her success can be derived from her academic achievements and experiences in other countries. Her content is widely known for its emphasis upon social issues and the interesting stances she takes on the topics. Most recently, Rubin has made notes on ISIS, analyzed the GOP letter to Iran, advocated women's rights in Afghanistan, and taken a deeper look into the relationship between Ghani and the U.S.

Rubin's content features subtle attacks on the Republican party, analyses of relationships, and promotions of women's rights. For this reason, I feel comfortable saying the Rubin is more affiliated with the democratic party than she is with GOP. Her political stance is not explicitly stated but, if I were to guess, would most likely be based off of these last few articles and what they have had to offer. However,  it is also worth noting her indifferent tone in articulation: she maintains a (for the most part) unbiased tone to convey messages in a manner more appealing to both audiences.

From what I understand, Rubin does not have any history of plagiarism or infringements upon the rules of the literary sphere. I admire her authenticity and credit her fully for her work and its absence of flaws. For this reason, Trudy Rubin remains a prominent figure in her field and contests regularly with other large journalists. She is similar to McManus in the sense that they are both "fair" in their conduct of argument and reason through

Trudy Rubin and Ghani's Unrequited Friendship (5:4)

The newly-inducted Afghan President's trip to Washington looked promising for both nations. Or so it seemed. Trudy Rubin, in her most recent article, analyzes what looks to be a rather unrequited friendship. Ashraf Ghani expressed his appreciation for our president but Obama could not return the favor. She says that he is more concerned with the politics regarding his term and social appearance after he steps down from office. Obama's eagerness to leave the troops in Afghanistan until after his term proves detrimental in many forms. Negotiations with Taliban have setback their deadline until after the troops leave and influences on the surrounding countries are not going to work in America's favor.

Despite a comparably short post, Rubin contends the argument that America is not returning friendship through a variety of rhetorical techniques. She is a frequent user of rhetorical questions and their ability to make a post seem more structured and reasoned-through. However, more notably in this post is her willingness to use figurative language and metonymies. Ghani is presented as "the antidote" to the former Afghan president. The deadline of Obama's term "threatens to pull the rug out from under Ghani." A "vacuum" would fill Afghanistan if we were to leave. And finally, to conclude her piece, the line regarding Obama's "eagerness to turn his back" notes his withdrawal of support. Trudy Rubin uses an immense amount of other techniques not common to her previous writing styles in this post in particular. It draws from rhetorical questions (appeal to logos)to set-up and precise wording (appeal to pathos with metaphors) to execute the argument in a rhetorically-appealing fashion.

Trudy Rubin and Helping Afghan Women (5:3)

Worldview: Changing the lives of Afghan women, with a Pa. connection

The Inquirer, Trudy Rubin, 22 March 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

With American troops leaving Afghan territory, many of the women fear the loss of their rights and "recent gains." Suraya Pakzad, however, is one of the women of the land that have taken initiatives to better the female society of Afghanistan and is working with Americans to better their standing in social relations. Trudy Rubin elaborates on this topic and draws attention to a number of shelters designed for women who have fled violence and troublesome marriages. She has worked with many U.S departments to push women's rights through restaurants, shelters, and cafes. Currently, lawyer Judith Price and University of Scranton Sondra Myers are extending their influence over this push and funding the program to great heights. Pakzad recognizes their effort as one unique to what the people can do in comparison to what an army can do. With many U.S officials backing her, Pakzad has started the Voice of Women Organization and worked against Taliban and ISIS influence, which assert a more submissive lifestyle for women. Rubin notes that Pakzad continues fighting to this day, less physically and more rhetorically.

Much of Rubin's central contention about women's rights in Afghanistan draw from anecdotal support. Suraya Pakzad provides the basis for her argument and aids in its development. First, Rubin analyzes her situation. Secondly, she mentions Pakzad's American support. Lastly, she notes the even greater initiatives to combat sexism in Afghanistan. Rubin's organization definitely plays a role in the rhetoric of her argument. It is easy to read, given the scenario and then the analysis. Another aspect that enhances Rubin's piece is her readiness to provide her own opinion. While frowned upon in this journalistic community, opinions seem to be rather under-rated. Rubin, however, sets her own voice aside in parenthesis. Saying that "I have visited her first shelter" would be irrelevant in the context but adds to her appeal to ethos. Mentioning that Ghani is trying "unsuccessfully" offers her own perspective into what is currently occurring. I see this small input as both an opinionated claim and a vehicle into the succeeding paragraphs. Over the course of the paper, Rubin refrains from the use of cold, hard evidence such as experiments and data. However, nearing the end, she uses a noticeable amount of statistics to contrast with her previous support. Noting that USAID has provided $216 million to women in Afghanistan and 75,000 are utilizing it to its potential ensure the reader that this cause is growing.

Trudy Rubin on the GOP Letter to Iran (5:2)

Worldview: A reckless ploy with real risks 

The Inquirer, Trudy Rubin, 15 March 2015

_________________________________________________________________________________

In response to Obama's "weak foreign policy," the Republican party has taken initiatives and strengthened their grasp on international communication. Rubin says that their recent letter to Iran is detrimental to our reputation as a country. She notes that the GOP's criticism of Obama detracts more power from our democratic society and displays it as a weaker player in international relations. Tom Cotton, responsible for the atrocity that is the letter, further discredits future presidents by claiming that the authority of presidential choices are invalid due to the Congress' overarching power to undo them. Despite the rare chance that Congress follows through with declining a presidential statement, Cotton reassures the poor authority of the President. Rubin further recognizes Cotton's supporters and their bad influence on him. She concludes by stating that, because of recent actions taken against the White House, it seems as though the conflict in Iran is more of a domestic, partisan issue than an international one.

Rubin, in creating this article, took a number of strategic approaches to assert that the GOP's letter to Iran hurt us more than it helped. She gives a brief summary of the letter and then draws conclusions based off of that information. Much of it seems rather unbiased due to its simple nature. For example, when Cotton argued that Congress can turn down any presidential choice, it detracts from the reputation of the presidential and invalidates our national authority. To make these conclusions and reinforce their rhetorical appeal, Rubin uses many quotes and even statistics. Most notably, however, is a subtle, but effective ad hominem attack she makes on Tom Cotton: "37-year-old Cotton, in office only two months." By making a note about his occupation-duration and how quickly he jumped the gun, she makes a implicit claim that addresses his character and focuses in on how hasty he jumps to conclusions. He's young and new but already he has made a mistake and been praised for it. The idea that he has been praised for it struck Rubin as peculiar and led her to her final conclusion that it is a partisan issue not an Iranian one.

Trudy Rubin on ISIS (5:1)

Worldview: Important to correctly define threat of ISIS

Philadelphia Inquirer, Trudy Rubin, 22 February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Trudy Rubin, an Opinion Columnist of Philadelphia Inquirer, regards the conflict of ISIS as less physical and more social. Our current understanding of ISIS may pertain solely to the definitions given to us by media and outstanding critics, many of which "dumped" on President Obama for his "refusal to use terms like radical Islam or jihadi terrorists." Rubin, having established this miscommunication, outlines the importance of defining the nation's enemies. She notes the quite obvious roots of ISIS and recognizes its religious affiliation but contrasts it immediately with the harsh reality of politics behind its name: dictatorships that give reason for extremism, nonviolent organizations overthrown, and the finance of extremist schools exemplify flaws within the political sphere rather than those in the religious sphere. From here, Rubin suggests a variety of solutions. To combat the teaching of religious extremism, Washington can encourage its authorities in Saudi Arabia to cut funding for the promotion of those ideologies. Within the virtual realm, the U.S counterterrorism communications program supports a certain appeal to pathos that draws from propaganda. Graphic videos, U.S soldier reflections, and simple tweets will hopefully suppress decisions to join ISIS. To bring the article to a close, Rubin draws from her introduction and defines the conflict with ISIS as something greater than religion.

Rubin's central contention is driven by one of Obama's recent speeches in which many White House critics scrutinized his choice of terminology. She determines whether or not this attack is justifiable and ultimately sides with Obama. Using terms such as radical Islam oversimplifies the conflict in the middle-east and often leads to domestic discrimination. Despite rooting themselves in religion, she argues, ISIS and other middle-eastern conflicts are politically based.

To support and argue this point, Rubin uses a multitude of rhetorical strategies and techniques. She begins the article with an all-encompassing rhetorical question: "How much do words matter in fighting ISIS?" Setting the mood and tone of the article, this question creates a goal  and creates an almost scientific-style approach to the situation. The following two paragraphs elaborate upon this idea and put the question under context, thus, making it more concrete and understandable. This set-up is particularly effective due to its convenient structuring and, if I were to relate it to our class, be some sort of AP Language prompt.

To synthesize and solidify her argument, she frequently makes interesting and original support. Rubin would often make a conjecture or draw strange conclusions, something that would, in any other context, work against her rhetoric. However, she follows it up immediately with support from reliable sources and other forms of reason. She would then take that form of logic and apply it to another supporting point. It strikes me as particularly remarkable that Rubin can provide a logical fallacy, convert it into a rhetoric maneuver, and then transition to repeat the process.

Rubin's superficial language might seem to be repulsive to English scholars. Her syntax often does not follow the traditional rules of sentence structure and draw from a vernacular type of writing. Starting sentences with "And" and having sentence fragments would be quite disruptive to an argument in many other contexts, but Rubin uses it in a manner that maintains formality and creates a certain conversational flow to her points. For example, she separates "Good question" into its own paragraph to lend the previous question extra attention and perhaps even appeal to her credibility as a critic.