Logical Fallacies in Commercials

The use of logical fallacies in the media today is present in many of the things we read, hear, or watch. In commercials especially, logical fallacies are used to try to convince the target buyer that they need whatever they’re selling.

In the DirecTV commercials, they use rhetorical strategies like post hoc, and slippery slope to sell their TV system. In their commercials, it’s usually a series of events that happen as a result of having a bad cable company. In one of them, it starts out like, “When you pay too much for cable, you throw things. When you throw things, people think you have anger issues. When people think you have anger issues, your schedule clears up. When your schedule clears up, you grow a scraggly beard. When you grow a scraggly beard, you start taking in stray animals. And when you start taking in stray animals you can’t stop taking in stray animals. Stop taking in stray animals. Get rid of cable and upgrade to DirecTV.”

This is a great use of post hoc, which mistakes correlation for causation.- assuming that when one thing after another happens, it was specifically caused by the previous occurrence. Slippery slope is also involved in this commercial because it’s saying that if you don’t have DirecTV, a series of events are gonna happen with an inevitably bad outcome.

Logical Fallacies of the Public's Views on the Poor

        Many rich Americans believe, may it be off of self-justification or assumption that other people that are well off than them are because those people do not work hard. In saying this, people think they work harder than others and deserve their wealth, even if handed down from their parents. The assumption that is being made here is based on the logical fallacies of appealing to probability. This is taking something for granted because it is believed to probably be the case. It is said, at a young age, that if you work hard you get rewarded. If someone is in a lower class family, parents each with multiple jobs, based on the idea previously stated, the family should be rewarded with less work, but yet many can still barely get by. People believe things that are easiest for themselves to believe, which alone is another fallacy. Many people work very hard and were put into bad situations young, people who were born into financially stable families should be grateful, as I am for mine. There ya go, two fallacies and a life lesson

Logical Fallacies in a Presidential Speech

     A formal speech is the best way to broadcast a set of ideas out to the public. Some of the most powerful movements were started in part by speeches. As a president, it is required that you make speeches regularly and in times of crisis. However, unlike debates, speeches are completely un-moderated and the speech giver can say whatever they want. While this may not matter when the speech is delivered by someone of moderate importance, when the president is giving a speech, it is in everyone's best interests to know what his points are and his evidence. When examining speeches such as these, logical fallacies can play a huge role.

     Allow me to pick on George W. Bush. In his 2005 speech on The Future of Immigration Policy, he states, "By defending our border, you're defending our liberty, and our citizens, and our way of life". This is a prime example of a false cause. Bush drew a connection between two things not because they are actually tied together, but because it adds to his argument. The President's use of a false cause also appeals to the emotions of his audience, but his appealing to the audience is done without any facts to back up the conclusion.

Daniel Tosh and Hasty Generalizations

While checking Facebook one day, I came across a video where comedian Daniel Tosh claims ESPN stole an idea from his show. Daniel Tosh is an American Comedian who's claim to fame includes his Comedy Central T.V. show Tosh.0.  The show consists of Daniel Tosh as himself commenting on funny, insane and occasionally disgusting video clips from the dark depths of the internet. At the end of every show, Daniel plays what he calls the "Web Redemption". In this segment, the star of  a particular video clip gets a chance at redeeming themselves and finally alleviating themselves from the shame of their embarrassing moment. I'm quite familiar with his show and this claim seemed interesting so I decided to give it a watch.  In this video, Daniel articulately expresses his discontent with the  gargantuan sports program ESPN using a whole slew of logical fallacies, particularly at the end where he states that "ESPN promotes killing kids"; A fine example of hasty generalization. Whether a fan of his show or not, Daniel sure knows how to use logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies in Gone Girl

Logical fallacies are seen all over, especially in movies and television shows. In the movie Gone Girl a woman, Amy Dunne, has gone missing and it is about the search to find her. Her husband, Nick Dunne, is framed for her murder because of his lack of knowledge of their recent relationship because of marital problems. As the story goes on the audience finds out that Amy Dunne had actually committed her own murder and is trying to frame her husband once she found out he is cheating on her. In Gone Girl the logical fallacies seen are red herring, guilt by association, and appeal to pity or sentiment.


Red herring- A misleading clue that is introduced into an argument in order to divert attention away from an item of significance or from what is being argued.
This is seen in Gone Girl because Amy is purposefully leaving clues to frame her husband. She created a crime scene and set her husband up. He didn't know at the time but all the clues would eventually lead to him as the murderer. The whole murder was a red herring because it was all false and trying to accuse Nick Dunne when he never did anything.


Guilt by Association- Assuming because someone associates with someone else, they have the same qualities as the associate.
 Nick Dunne is assumed guilty for the murder because he is married to Amy and didn't know much about her life. They had a distant relationship and he didn't even know who her best friends were. This made him seem guilty for the murder because of their distant relationship as well as the clues. If Nick wasn't married to Amy he wouldn't have been the top suspect for her case.


Appeal to Pity or Sentiment- Attempting to win an argument with a pathetic appeal to the emotions of the opposition or the audience.
In the end, Amy has to return home because she is found out. She makes up stories that she was raped and kidnapped so that people wouldn't think she was crazy enough to commit her own murder. She says that she was taken by her ex- boyfriend who was obsessed with her and he raped until she killed him. Her ex- boyfriend and Nick were the only people who knew the true story about her death, so she killed him. Once she tells her story to the news she receives love and the whole country loves her because of all she has been through.

Bill O'Reilly's Logical Tumble

In this video excerpt from Bill O'Reilly's hit show "The O'Reilly Factor", O'Reilly sits down with Tavis Smiley, an African-American author. Smiley comes to represent African-American voters who are unhappy with their lack of progress since the election of Obama. Smiley dubs African-American voters as a neglected demographic that is taken for granted by Democrats and ignored by Republicans, and that the African-American vote is too powerful to be neglected in such a way. O'Reilly, an avid Republican, claims that this is because the white Republican demographic is "afraid" of the black voters, and indifferent to their ways of life. This argument is unsubstantiated and seems inappropriate, but allowed to slide by Smiley.

Later in the interview, Smiley brings up the fact that even with a black president, white privilege still exists and blacks aren't making enough forward progress. O'Reilly rebukes this statement by claiming that white privilege simply doesn't exist. He acknowledges the statistics that show the disproportionate nature of racial poverty, but claims that the black delusion of white privilege is caused by "the collapse of the black family". This argument is also unsubstantiated, and takes a unique irony as it is stated by a hyper-conservative white man sitting across from a black man. O'Reilly's logical follies are plentiful on his show, which airs weeknights at 7 and 10 P.M. on Fox.

Logical Fallacies in Fox News

While looking for something to write my post about, I remembered Mrs. Young's comment about how all we had to do was watch Fox News for abut a minute. So, I looked up 'ridiculous fox news arguments' and found one about women voting during the midterms. 

At one point in the report, one host had something potentially ignorant to say about women who vote: "Married women vote republican, single women vote heavily for democrats." This is an example of hasty generalization, which is defined as "reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence". While that statement could be generally true, its not such a definitive statement as the hosts are making it sound.They also kept talking about the universal "woman", not acknowledging how hard it is to generalize us all as a whole since everyone is different. 

They then continued with another logical fallacy, slippery slope. Slippery slope is "where a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument". Co-host Greg Gutfeld said "...with age comes wisdom" and the "older you get, the more conservative you get." Another quickly followed that with "And get a brain." 

I suppose this is a very subjective topic, since my own opinions and political views can easily get in the way. But objectively, logical fallacies can effortlessly find their way into any political argument/discussion. 

Fallacies in Fox News Article

American media and politics are filled with logical fallacies. Fox News is especially known for its biased and non-credible articles. Fox News’ recent article “Top California Democrat: Reliance is the ‘American Way’” is about Democratic State Senator Kevin de Leon. The article includes an abundance of logical fallacies, attempting to persuade readers. The article states that de Leon is receiving little attention from the California media. The writer, Richard Grenell then states, “Maybe that’s because reporters in the Golden State are used to hearing a growing chorus of Democrats embrace the welfare state and dismiss hard work.” This first fallacy is shifting the burden of truth. When the writer uses the term “maybe,” he aims to persuade the reader, while really he has no evidence to support his claim. Grenell also uses the either/or fallacy when he says that either people are hard-workers or they are completely lazy and rely on welfare. In this case, Grenell is making the generalization that all Californians are lazy and rely on welfare. This is also a non sequitor fallacy because the work ethic of the people has nothing to do with how much attention de Leon should be receiving politically. Grenell goes on to discuss how de Leon is reinforcing that laziness is not a bad thing for America. Grenell completely disagrees with de Leon and makes this very clear. Grenell states, “California Democrats are out to kill the American dream by ridiculing the commitment to hard work.” This sentence is entirely a hasty generalization, labelling every single California Democrat based on one man. Also, Grenell exhibits the logical fallacy ad populum as he appeals to the audience’s sense of identity as Americans. The term “American dream” is meant to appeal to the reader’s sense of patriotism and tradition. It is outrageous how many blatant logical fallacies Grenell uses in this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/top-california-democrat-reliance-is-american-way/

Logical Fallacies in Philadelphia

The television show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia is about five friends who own a bar together in Phili. This show is hilarious and full of logical fallacies. In the Episode “Reynolds vs. Reynolds: The Cereal Defense” the fallacies of ad hominem, red herring, and non sequitur are prevalent. The episode starts with Frank accidentally hitting Dennis’s car at a red light. They decide the only way they are going to decide who pays the damages is by having a trial in the bar.

The fallacy of ad hominem was present in this episode when Mac was trying to plead franks argument and Dee questioned Mac’s character. She did not question what he was saying but if he should be credible because he doesn’t believe in evolution. This question of character led to a red herring. They end up having a trial about Mac’s character so they could see if he should be credible in the other trial. Dennis decides to prove his point once and forall by giving Frank a glass of wine and pushing him off the stool and telling him that he will pay the dry cleaning of the shirt that frank spilled the wine on. This portrays the logical fallacy of non sequitur. After a trial with several twists and turns Dee ends up having to pay for the damages because she gave the wrong directions.

Logical Fallacies: Advertisements' Biggest Customer

This would be an example of appeal to authority.
This fallacy is committed when someone of higher authority is referenced and most often quoted, in order for the reader/viewer to be persuaded in the direction of the company. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

In this specific advertisement, Lucky Strike is trying to lure in customers by saying that this product is recommended by Physicians. This specific logical fallacy very common among modern cigarette ads, and those of the past. In these cases the reasoning is flawed because you can’t just slap an authoritative career on the front of your ad, making a certain claim, without any justification for the claim. When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.
Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

 

This would be an example of a Non Sequitur.

Non Sequitur is the fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument stated. In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. In this specific ad it trying to convince consumers to buy and eat more lard. Happiness is generally a desirable thing, so customers will see this, and think, ‘well, I want to be happy, so I’ll feed my family lard!’ Now this is dumb. Happiness has literally 0 connection to lard. 0.

Logical Fallacies in Mean Girls

The film Mean Girls incorporates many logical fallacies. Even though these fallacies are for the most part extreme and made for the purpose of humor, they are still representative of fallacies used today. Hasty generalization is used towards the beginning of the film. Cady Heron (new to the school) is white and from Africa. The teacher announces that a new student has arrived and is from Africa. The class turns to the only black kid in the class assuming it’s that student, however it isn’t. This shows a hasty generalization, or a conclusion made about a population based on a sample not the population as a whole. This applies to this situation specifically because; the students assumed that all Africans are black based on what they have seen in the media (a hasty generalization).

         

 

Secondly Post Hoc is used in this film when Aaron Samuels (the object of Cady Heron’s affection) asks Cady why she never talked to him even though she loves him. Cady explains that it was because Aaron was Regina George’s (his ex-girlfriend) property. He gets upset when she suggests that he was the property of his former girlfriend, causing her to immediately refute her past claim. This is an example of post hoc, a faulty cause, because Cady proves that her excuse was never valid in the first place when she refutes her own excuse when Aaron is upset by it.

Mindy's Funny Fallacies

The creator of the syndicated television show “The Mindy Project,” Mindy Kaling, is a veritable genius in the ways of rhetoric and comedy. In her show, Ms. Kaling exhibits numerous rhetorical strategies in dialogue between characters. What with her Ivy League education, maybe it is only natural for the author to include these things in her sense of humor.

One episode in particular, entitled “The Devil Wears Lands’ End,” includes an extremely interesting bit of logical fallacy. The logical fallacy occurs at the very beginning of the episode, and is immediately followed by rather risqué material, in case you want to see it with a young audience. While driving home from a wedding with her love interest, Danny, Mindy is pulled over for speeding. She immediately informs Danny of her uncanny ability to evade speeding tickets with a self-described sob-story method. In the following interaction between Mindy and the officer, she demonstrates her skill:

“Mindy: Officer, the reason we were speeding is because we were rushing away from this devastating funeral of a very close friend of ours who died.
Officer shines his flashlight on some incriminating photo-booth pictures visible from Mindy’s purse.
Officer incredulous: And the funeral had a photo booth with prop mustaches?
Mindy begins to sob pathetically: You know what? Just give me a ticket. I can’t have a baby!”

This interaction perfectly demonstrates the logical fallacy of appeal to pity. Rather than arguing an actual point, Mindy simply offers random pieces of her own misfortune: “I can’t have a baby!” By sharing one’s own misfortune, the employer of an appeal to pity hopes to achieve one of two things: either the audience will become exhausted by irrelevant information in much the same way as argument ad nauseam, or the story will evoke a sentiment of sympathy in the audience.

In this example, Mindy seems to accomplish a little bit of both. The officer responds by attempting to calm her down, illustrating his aversion to arguing with hysterical drivers who have a lot to say about their personal life. After this attempt to pacify her, the officer concedes the argument: “I’ll cut you a break. You remind me of the demented aunt that raised me.”

This victory shows how logical fallacy can be purposefully employed. Mindy knows that she is diverting the argument, and does so because she has no other defense. In light of this, logical fallacies are often used when legitimate rhetorical techniques are unavailable. On another level, Mindy Kaling's logical fallacies serve to make us all laugh at her bizarre antics. 

Logical Fallacies in Pop Culture

In nearly every episode of television series Scrubs, created by Bill Laurence, there are countless instances of logical fallacies presented. Scrubs centers on an emerging doctor dubbed J.D. and his life inside and out of Sacred Heart Hospital, where he learns of both medicine and life itself. Whether it be in general friendships or doctor-patient relationships, arguments erupt along with logical fallacies. In Season 7, Episode 3, "My Inconceivable Truth," centers around hypocrisy and arguments; an episode overflowing with logical fallacies.

Circular Reasoning
Definition: An argument that justifies itself.
Example: Circular reasoning is the first logical fallacy present in "My Inconceivable Truth." In the episode, the hospital gets a new patient scale. When Turk, a surgeon, asks his wife Karla, the head nurse of Sacred Heart, to see what her weight is, J.D. states that Turk cannot do this. J.D.'s argument is that women cannot be asked for their weight. His reasoning behind this argument is that it is because women say so.

Appeal to Pity or Sentiment
Definition: Attempting to win an argument with a pathetic appeal to the emotions of the opposition or the audience.
Example: In "My Inconceivable Truth," appeal to pity is overtly evident. When the janitor parks his car in the parking lot of Sacred Heart, Sacred Heart's Lawyer named Ted arrives on his bike and accuses the janitor as killing the earth because he leaves his car stalling all day and does not participate in carpooling. Ted then shows the janitor a video which illustrates the dying of the earth. After the video, teary-eyed Janitor becomes an environmentalist, monitoring the hospital and enforcing "green" rules.

Guilt by Association
Definition: Assuming because someone associates with someone else, they have the same qualities as the associate.
Example: Guilt by association is present through the janitor's environmentalist efforts. When Dr. Kelso, the chief of medicine, sees that the janitor is trying to preserve the earth, Kelso calls the janitor a "hippie" just because he associates hippies with environmentalist efforts.

Appeal to Tradition
Definition: When what has occurred in the past is used to bolster a present position.
Example: One of the main controversies in "My Inconceivable Truth" is between J.D. and his brother Dave. When Dave comes to town, J.D. expects it to boost his self esteem because his brother is considered to be a failure. Upon learning that Dave has bought J.D. a car and is now successful, J.D. turns on Dave. Dave does not understand why his brother is aggravated to which J.D. justifies as because Dave was always, and always supposed to be, the loser.

Ad Hominem
Definition: When a person attacks his opponent and not his opponent's argument.
Example: In "My Inconceivable Truth," ad hominem is present after Dave tells his brother that he needs to grow up. J.D. immediately reacts by attacking his brother instead of opposing the position that his brother is advancing.

Red Herring
Definition: A misleading clue that is introduced into an argument in order to divert attention away from an item of significance or from what is being argued.
Example: A red herring is present in the dispute between J.D. and his brother Dave. When J.D. is angry with Dave for stating that "you need to grow up," J.D. begins asking others if Dave is correct. When J.D. is around Dave, instead of talking their argument out, Dave becomes a "common questioner" and begins to ask countless questions that have nothing to do with the argument, in an attempt to distract J.D. from the argument at hand.

Failed Logic
The most overt example of a logical fallacy in "My Inconceivable Truth" has to do with Elliot, a doctor. Elliot is upset with Sacred Heart because of all of the hypocrites. One example she uses to support her belief is when the Chief of Medicine, Bob Kelso, tries to convince his lung cancer patient to stop smoking, while smoking a pipe. Elliot's logic is flawed because she accuses others as being hypocrites when she herself is also a hypocrite. Elliot is a hypocrite because she tells her patient that she needs to lose weight. Elliot agrees to also lose weight with her patient, but eventually gives up and even though Elliot weighs less than her patient, she still insists that her patient lose weight. Clearly, Elliot's logic is fallacious.

If you want to know how all of these logical fallacies play out and relate to one another, I strongly recommend watching the episode: Scrubs, Season 7, Episode 3.

Logical Fallacies found in Gun Debates

Politicians are some of the foremost users of logical fallacies.  Political debates are created based off these logical fallacies.  This is especially prevalent in gun debates.


Those that want stricter gun control laws often use the argument that if we don't ban guns then more children will be horrifically murdered.  This is a perfect example of a slippery slope.  There is no direct correlation between gun laws and children's deaths, yet a politician would use this fallacy to makes their audience believe that if this law is not enforced then there will be extremely negative consequences.


This can also be considered an either/or logical fallacy.  It makes people believe that they either can ban guns and in essence, save the children, or allow people to own guns and are giving them the means to kill their children.


Another politician might argue by appealing to tradition.  Since their father was allowed to carry a gun, and their grandfather before that, then shouldn't they be allowed to carry guns?  If this was the case then any new laws would never apply.  Just because your great great grandfather owned slaves doesn't mean you should.  Yet this appeal to tradition proves very powerful for many people because it creates a self-righteous patriotic attitude in those that believe in it.

Fear in The Crucible

Fear is a major theme in The Crucible. Fear of being caught conjuring in the woods caused the young girls to lie about what was really going on out there. Among the girls there were many different versions of the same story and no one really knew who to believe. Fear also caused Tituba to admit to be using witchcraft in the woods. This is because she was afraid of being whipped if they found out that she was lying to them. Fear can also be used to your advantage though. Abigail used the people's fear of witches to prove her own innocence.

Fear is also used in modern day America. One example of how this happens is how the fear of being caught for committing a crime causes criminals to run from the law. Another example is how teachers tell students that if they are disobedient in class, they will be sent to the principals office. This, in turn, causes the students to obey the rules out of fear of getting in trouble.

I'm sure that in Act Two we will see many more instances of how the characters in the story use fear to achieve their goals of staying out of trouble. Miller is very clever in using fear in this play to distort how we feel about the characters and how they feel about each other. Fear can be a very bad way to get what you want, but it can also be a very clever way to achieve your goals. I hope that later on in this play we see how the conflicts will be resolved and if fear will continue to be a major theme in the story.

Reflections on Sexism in The Crucible

It's already been said a number of times that in class we are reading The Crucible. While we are not particularly far into the play, it is already completely evident that there are a number of prejudices against women in the text. The majority of the characters are women, which provides a number of case studies not only into what was believed in the Quaker times, but even more so into what was believed when Arthur Miller wrote the play in 1952.

The 1950s were hardly a fantastic time for women in the U.S. They were generally thought to be the domestic caretaker in the nuclear family. Homemakers, mothers, cooks, and cleaners, they operated under labels which confined them to the home and limited them from excessive ambition. This ambition was generally saved for their husbands. Here too, the affairs of women seem like silly, unimportant matters that in general do not require the attention of men. If something does require the attention of a man, it is because the woman has erred to extent that it might conflict with the man's goals and and his importance.

Ironically, for all the dialect changes between 1692 and 1952, the role of women in the society remained remarkably the same. In the first act of The Crucible, all positions of power are held by men: John Proctor, Parris, Giles, Putnam, etc. Their wives and female servants are perpetually giddy, odd, ridiculous, inert or unreasonable. This is shown by all the female characters thus introduced. They have jobs, but in so far as the audience has seen, it would appear all women do is cause trouble for men to clean up.

However, this unapologetically sexist message is hardly the message of the play. In fact, given the little change between the roles of women in the the late 17th century and the mid 20th century, it is likely that Miller was not even aware he was writing in harmful stereotypes. He uses the women of his play as a tool to comment on the wider systematic political flaws occurring in a America during his time- the problems of men. Even the women are only used to represent the flawed men, or communists, as I come to understand it.

I do not blame Miller. He is writing during his time. And in any writer's present time it is near impossible to leave the societal views which the community as a whole have bestowed on us. This play is a prime example of views on women in the 1950s, certainly more so than of views on women in the 1690s.

Thoughts about Theatre

Since we're moving from The Goon Squad to The Crucible, I thought it'd be good to share some thoughts on why I think live theatre is such a good experience to have. I think live theatre is such a different experience from anything else. Of course there are concerts, and other live performances, and those have their own pros, but live theatre is this entirely unique experience. As Bobby and Mr. Heidkamp said in class, each performance in live theatre is different. This is true both when new companies/actors are performing, and also night to night performances. Joanna Gleason (the original "Baker's Wife" in Into the Woods) actually said that she keeps a secret with her every show, and the secret changes with each performance. This isn't something that every actor does, or even necessarily something every actor should do, but it's a good way to show that even with the same exact lines, dialogue, blocking, songs, etc, each performance is entirely unique to the audience and the cast. (Side note, if you haven't already seen Into the Woods, I highly suggest it, they're making a movie of it that comes out on the 25th of December).

In my experience, whenever I am performing onstage, I feed off of the audience. Sometimes that can be a really good thing. For example, if it's a comedy, and people are laughing, it sends a positive vibe, which helps with the energy of the show. Sometimes it may be less helpful, again if you are performing a comedy and nobody laughs, it's sometimes tricky to keep energy levels up. This also goes for drama, mystery, etc. The audience and the performer have a very interesting relationship. They play off of one another, and need one another to have a successful performance.

The Crucible in Our Lives

The Crucible tells a story of young girls blaming people for being involved with the devil and consequently getting them killed. It seems odd to us that people could be so cruel and just watch someone suffer at their expense. The girls in the Crucible are terrified of getting in trouble for dancing in the forest. So they begin to lie, and say that the have been possessed by people living in the town to avoid the consequences they would of had to suffer for dancing in the forest.

Although this concept of blaming people out of fright might seem foreign to us, we experience it on many occasions. I have often blamed my sibling or friends for actions I have committed.  At the time I was so scared of getting in trouble that I was willing to blame someone else. While this is not as severe as what took place in the Salem witch trials, it still makes a connection and helps us connect to characters that are terrifyingly immoral.

There have also been other situations in history similar to the Salem witch trials. During the period of the Red Scare, people were terrified of being called a communist. To prevent being thought or labeled as a communist people would blame others around them.

This issue of blaming people for our own mistakes out of fear is still in our everyday lives and shows up countless times in history. Unfortunately characters like Abigail and Betty are more relatable than one might initially think.

Arthur Miller

There are many Arthur Miller facts out there that fans, even the most passionate fans of his work, probably don't know. With a career spanning more than six decades, Miller is one of the most well-respected literary talents of the 20th century, especially in the world of playwrighting. While Miller was a man with his high-profile moments, there's much that remained out of the spotlight.
Early Years

• Miller was born in 1915 in New York City.
• His parent's names were Isidore and Augusta Miller.
• His father ran a successful women's clothing store, but was illiterate.
• Miller's family lost nearly everything in the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
• In order to pay for his first year of college, Miller worked at an auto parts company for two years.
• Miller won the Avery Hopwood Award for young playwrights in 1936; he was still in college at the time.
• The University of Michigan is Miller's alma mater.
• His first Broadway play, The Man Who Had All the Luck, was a commercial failure and closed after only four performances.

Writing Career

• All My Sons (1947) became Miller's first success and earned him his first Tony Award.
• The Crucible (1953) was intended to be a statement against the McCarthy era and Communist fear.
• 1955's A View from a Bridge was considered one of Miller's best one-act plays; it was later modified to include two acts (1956).
• Among Miller's most prestigious awards, are Emmy Awards, Tony Awards and a Pulitzer Prize for Drama.
• Miller worked with a veritable who's who of Hollywood, including Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Lauren Bacall, John Malkovich, Daniel Day-Lewis, Steve McQueen and Stacy Keach

Personal Life

• Miller was married three times: Mary Slattery, Marilyn Monroe and Inge Morath.
• The playwright and Monroe divorced less than two years before the famous actress died.
• He had four children, Jane and Robert with Slattery and Rebecca and Daniel with Morath.
• Miller's daughter Rebecca married Academy Award winning actor Daniel Day-Lewis.
• Miller's youngest son was born with Down Syndrome.
• He claimed to be a life-long atheist.
• Miller was found in contempt of court when he would not name suspected communists during Congressional hearings in 1957.

Salem Witch Trial

After reading Act 1 of the Crucible, I have a new perspective on the original cause of the witch trials.  I use to think they were due to overly religious people, who feared things they could not explain, but now I believe there is a different culprit; greed.  

The Puritan people were not suppose to be greedy or sinful so they had to cover up those feelings well to become accepted members of the community.  Yet those feelings were still there; resentment, greed, jealously of their fellow members of their community bubbling just under the surface.  

Witches gave these people a "socially acceptable" way to fence their frustrations and succumb to their real feelings.  I believe that a majority of these people knew the "witches" they "outed" were not actually witches.  They cried witch because it suited their needs; either  due to long held grudges or their desire to acquire some possession the "witch" currently had.

The Salem witch trials were a way for greedy, begrudged people to gain an upper hand in a way that not only was accepted in their society, but considered noble.  Outing a witch not only allowed a person to gain whatever profit they sought, but also increased their standing in the community.