(WEEKLY WRITING NUMBER 4)
To understand the debate around food is to try to understand a highly complex process involving government subsidies, corporate interests and issues of human rights (good and bad). Therefore, upon delving head-first into the controversial debate, both sides are ready with ammunition and it is nearly impossible to pick a distinguishable winner. In my last analysis, I investigated the controversies surrounding genetically modified food species. Yet, despite my best efforts, it is an impossible to pin down the debate and really grasp the true and total spectrum of how large the issues surrounding American consumerism and the products that it consists of really is. Ultimately, it is important to keep investigating the issues and keep understanding both sides of the debate.
Karryn Sako, a writer for ActionBioscience.org presents a very compelling argument regarding both sides of the debate in her article The Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods, but insets her own personal bias’ into the piece to make her personal feelings towards the issue easy to distinguish. She first, breaks down the science of the process and goes into the debate, ultimately concluding that the process of Genetic Modification, while not fully understood is making revolutionary advancements in food development – and thus she supports it. She describes how the process is similar to that of selective breeding. While traditional breeding methods are slow, they essentially breed traits out. In this new genetics breeding, biotechnicians achieve unnatural boosting to the process by fusing DNA in plants. Thus, she goes into the benefits of the debate. She explains that through the process of genetic modification, growing GM crops is initially costly but cheaper in the long run. Further, farmers need less herbicides in GM fields and further with animals (she uses Salmon) they are shown to grow 30 times faster than average and may soon be approved by the FDA.
While she does introduce risks into her argument, the support and warrants behind her claims are substantial. For her support, as any scientific article does, she goes into scientific support for all her claims and looks into real time observations to back up her claims. For example, through interviews with farmers, she found that growing GM is economical by stating that while initially crops are expensive but money is saved on pesticides in the long run. While farmers need expensive equipment, they will ultimately spend less time producing the products and it is precise so unwanted genes are eliminated. To conclude her argument, she distinguishes one more time the reasons why her argument is substantial – recapping her previous claim. These arguments include improved storage and nutritional quality, pest and disease resistance, selective herbicide tolerance, improved animal welfare and higher yields and quality.
For ethos, an appeal based upon character of the speaker, she is very successful at conveying her argument. She is writing specially to a scientific audience, based upon the nature of the forum for which she is publishing her argument. She appeals to the nature of the magazine, giving concrete scientific data and gene processes but also many facts and figures. She assumes that the audience who is interested in this type of information will be able to understand the complexities of her scientific evidence. Additionally, the tone in which the language takes place is almost purely informational. While it is suggestive of her own personal opinion, you never hear a clear voice but rather facts to support a given conclusion. Logos in this instance ties directly into ethos. She is a credible scientific writer, and the forum here is purely scientific. She is only trying to appeal to our deductive reasoning surrounding economics, technology and the agricultural process. However, from a Pathos perspective, there is little to no emotion presented in this argument. This is pretty significant when the reader has a difficult time discerning the conclusion until the very end of the article because both sides of the argument are presented so thoroughly. For a reader who is not overly passionate about this topic, this article is informative, convincing and logical. However, it is not enough to persuade the other side to change their mind, because it is missing a very human element though extremely through and well written.
Looking at an entirely different perspective, I turned to the con side of the debate which appeals more so to Pathos, something the pro side has a difficult time doing. In the article Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble, the title is relatively self explanatory. According to the article, author Robert Weissman, biotech crop is being grown today at astounding rates. For backers of the biotech revolution, this is cause to celebrate as they claim it helps farmers, promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. However, Weissman claims they are doing exactly the opposite. For all industry hype around the products, it is only four products – soy, corn, cotton and canola which are only bread to resist the Monsanto product ‘Roundup’ and only one naturally occurring pesticide. The benefits, however, stop there.
His support is vast. By quoting such individuals as Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and author of Who Benefits from GM Crops, he has found that they do absolutely nothing to feed the hungry as they are only actually exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed due to the price (Sakko also acknowledges the expensive costs which make her argument for GM’s feeding the poor seem counterintuitive). Additionally, he supports his argument, by saying that Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but instead farmers must spray the particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop. What this does, it creates expenditures above and beyond, but reduces labor costs, which is good for industrial farms but bad for smaller operations. He further goes on to argue on behalf of the “social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of farmers” as well as the ecological and sustainability problems with these type of crops that are already emerging. Most importantly, he discusses the idea and evidence supporting Monsanto’s “seed imperialism” which is occurring and putting farmers out of business.
His warrants are very effective. First, his argument importantly appeals to Pathos. As you are reading you envision large corporations who without hesitation are crushing the little guy, and further are putting them out of business due to legalities involving intellectual property of crops. This is not only something farmers can’t control (often GM crops will blow into their farms and breed with their own – a violation of the IP) but they don’t even know they are doing it. It is a sad picture to be painted, and paints the corporation in a very dim light. There is passion in his argument and it is convincing. Secondly, as an appeal to Logos, he draws a very successful case. For every claim he makes he takes the reader through the entire process of the crop, through the genetics involved to the cultivation process to the effects big and small. Our understanding of the process grows along with the development of his argument as he takes you environmental factors to substantial economic factors. However, in terms of ethos, the author is unknown, but supplements a famous author in his place to make his argument more credible. He posts this article on multinationalmonitor.org, so the credibility of him in particular isn’t quite there and you don’t know how extreme his views really are. Still, he supports all evidence with facts by experts which helps make his argument sound credible and refined.
The process of argument is so much more than simply providing facts and supplementing them with information. As an author, you need to appeal to multiple facets of the human emotion to create a convincing argument. In this examination, we found that it is one thing to provide the reader with facts and another to allow the reader to feel the passion of an author. This process, while simple, comes across as being a key element to persuasion by the reader.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Fanatomy - A Look at Seattle Sports
As I diehard Mariners fan growing up in Seattle, I can remember being seven years old and cheering on all the players whose stats I had memorized with my father. Thus, the passion that Brewer describes is certainly relatable on a highly personal level. Ultimately, in his highly passionate argument regarding the sports scene Seattle as a whole, he argues that while they struggle with the reputation and speed bumps throughout the history of Seattle’s franchises, the fans ultimately deserve more credit then they are being afforded.
To support the evidence of hardships associated with the sports reputation of the city, Seattle has no lack of evidence to support the claims of the rest of the county. First, he reminds the reader that Seattle is still a relatively new sports town – citing that the Seahawks and Mariners are still only in their 30’s. Additionally, it is hard for Seattle to gain a reputable perspective amidst the sports world: as a city it is considered ‘too isolated’ to gain attention on the east coast, additionally time zones add to even more isolation. Yet, that is not all Seattle is. Despite disappointing seasons, the fans are still loyal. He cites Seattle as having intelligent fans, as well as die-hard fans that choose to address the dissimilarities between themselves and fans in the east coast.
Additionally, he uses a great deal of warrants in his argument. He creates associations between himself as a writer and that of a Seattle fan. He makes it known that he understand the perils, and gives us hope in saying that in a black and white world there are always shades of grey – a color which no other city knows better. He cites famous sports news anchors to back up his claims, but also takes the argument to a more personal level by citing fans, ex-pitchers and other experts. His argument is highly emotional, however. He is making it a point to be relatable and uses our history to remind us as a sports city where we have been as well as where we are going.
To support the evidence of hardships associated with the sports reputation of the city, Seattle has no lack of evidence to support the claims of the rest of the county. First, he reminds the reader that Seattle is still a relatively new sports town – citing that the Seahawks and Mariners are still only in their 30’s. Additionally, it is hard for Seattle to gain a reputable perspective amidst the sports world: as a city it is considered ‘too isolated’ to gain attention on the east coast, additionally time zones add to even more isolation. Yet, that is not all Seattle is. Despite disappointing seasons, the fans are still loyal. He cites Seattle as having intelligent fans, as well as die-hard fans that choose to address the dissimilarities between themselves and fans in the east coast.
Additionally, he uses a great deal of warrants in his argument. He creates associations between himself as a writer and that of a Seattle fan. He makes it known that he understand the perils, and gives us hope in saying that in a black and white world there are always shades of grey – a color which no other city knows better. He cites famous sports news anchors to back up his claims, but also takes the argument to a more personal level by citing fans, ex-pitchers and other experts. His argument is highly emotional, however. He is making it a point to be relatable and uses our history to remind us as a sports city where we have been as well as where we are going.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Seattle University's Response to Haitian Earthquake
As the estimates of the damage in the poverty stricken nation of Haiti continue to unravel, the outpouring of community support throughout the Western Hemisphere and the World only continue to grow. Seattle University sits seemingly worlds away from the devastation, yet response to the tragedy is strong and only continues to grow throughout the community. To cope with such devastation, Seattle University seeks to not just provide their students on information regarding the recent event's tragedy - they work to offer solutions.
Across campus the message from Father Stephen V. Sundborg, the President of the Jesuit Seattle University reigns heartfelt and emotional. "We are heartbroken and overwhelmed by the tragedy that has been inflicted on the people of Haiti by the earthquake" exclaims Father Sundborg in his emotional letter to the campus.
Seattle University encourages its students to be active in any way they can contribute - even if they may feel their response is minuscule. Further, Father Sundborg and the University urge their students to respond educationally through study, respond humanly through personal sacrifice by helping the relief efforts and finally respond spiritually though prayer. The University considers the Haitians to be "brothers and sisters" to everyone in the community as it seeks to urge action to its constituents.
The University will hold a 12:05 mass in the Chapel of St. Ignatius and will be offered for the people of the Island Nation. At night, an evening student Mass will be held at 6:15 in Ecumenical Chapel in Campion Hall to bring students together in prayer.
That is not the only action the University is taking. From there, the University seeks to provide Masses by the Catholic Relief Services and Jesuit Refugee Services for their emergency work with the people of Haiti among whom they work. Additionally, Sean Bray, Social Justice Minister in Campus Ministry is available to be the point person for the university to help coordinate response and communication. He can be reached at brays@seattleu.edu or by phone at 296-6079.
On their website http://www.seattleu.edu/commons/ you can also find links to donate, information on events, updates, resources as well as words of support.
Across campus the message from Father Stephen V. Sundborg, the President of the Jesuit Seattle University reigns heartfelt and emotional. "We are heartbroken and overwhelmed by the tragedy that has been inflicted on the people of Haiti by the earthquake" exclaims Father Sundborg in his emotional letter to the campus.
Seattle University encourages its students to be active in any way they can contribute - even if they may feel their response is minuscule. Further, Father Sundborg and the University urge their students to respond educationally through study, respond humanly through personal sacrifice by helping the relief efforts and finally respond spiritually though prayer. The University considers the Haitians to be "brothers and sisters" to everyone in the community as it seeks to urge action to its constituents.
The University will hold a 12:05 mass in the Chapel of St. Ignatius and will be offered for the people of the Island Nation. At night, an evening student Mass will be held at 6:15 in Ecumenical Chapel in Campion Hall to bring students together in prayer.
That is not the only action the University is taking. From there, the University seeks to provide Masses by the Catholic Relief Services and Jesuit Refugee Services for their emergency work with the people of Haiti among whom they work. Additionally, Sean Bray, Social Justice Minister in Campus Ministry is available to be the point person for the university to help coordinate response and communication. He can be reached at brays@seattleu.edu or by phone at 296-6079.
On their website http://www.seattleu.edu/commons/ you can also find links to donate, information on events, updates, resources as well as words of support.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Ongoing Food Debate
Introduction
When it comes to the topic of food consumption here in the United States most of us will readily agree that we are left (most of the time intentionally) in the dark about what is in the food we are consuming on a regular basis. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not it is necessary to know what you are consuming and how these alterations will ultimately affect your health. Whereas some are convinced that Genetically Modified Foods and processed meat are highly beneficial for the economy and increasing demands, while others maintain that we need to focus more on local farming and food production.
The Issue At Hand
This is obviously an issue that has been getting a great deal of mainstream attention with such movies as Food Inc. and Supersize Me. Not only is a cause for somewhat of a controversy which has forced companies like McDonald’s to integrate more health options, but it is a very in-depth debate with many layers. First, the debate arouses issues around the use of chemicals in our meat and crops. From there, it draws into question as to whether organic farming truly is the solution it seems to be, or whether it is just a marketing ploy to give consumers a false sense of security.
Pro-Organics
According to Deborah B. Whitman, in an article entitled Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?, the GM debate was just broaching the surface. While she does outline the debate, she also goes in depth as to what exactly a GM food is. According to the FDA and USDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization – including tomatoes and cantaloupes which carry modified ripening characteristics and foods like cotton which are resistant to insects. Highly processed foods, such as breakfast cereals will contain some amount of genetic modification. Soybeans and corn are the most widely grown crops, and 75% of them contain genetic modification to date. Most importantly, labeling of these foods is solely based off demand, and agribusiness argues that they will only label if necessary to meet the demands of the free market. Yet, through this alteration of the genetic make-up of plants there are still issues of health that are being raised by organic enthusiasts and farmers on the effects of this modification.
In Whitman’s informative essay, she goes into depth to explain the pro’s and con’s of the food debate. First, there is a great deal of unintended harm to other organisms from the production of genetically modified food. In 1999, the mortality rates in the monarch and butterfly population skyrocketed causing damage to the food chain due to the consumption of corn pollen. Additionally, pesticides are becoming more and more ineffective and of gene transfer to non-target species. This, however, only outlines the risks involved in crop production as the human risks are still yet to be investigated.
In terms of human health risks, Whitman notes that many children in the U.S. have began to develop life threatening food allergies and many are concerned a new allergen is being produced by these new foods. Thus, this is the basis for the argument requiring labels on GM foods. Importantly, the issue that the new genes introduced into our food may have unknown future health risks. In some studies, scientists have found substantial differences in the digestive tracts of rats who consume genetic and non-genetic foods.
Still, we are left with the issue of animal consumption to human health. It is not so much that eating animals are bad in and of themselves, the problem relates to their consumption of GM corn as well as growth hormones, which is not natural to their consumption and ultimately argued to be unhealthy for humans. Nutritionist Cathryn D. Blue argues that factory farm animals are: higher in fat, increased levels of hormone use in animals is leading to early onset puberty for men and women and there is evidence that pesticides cause cancer.
Nothing Wrong With Modification
Michael Pollan is a very big name in the growing food debate and has been a strong advocate for organic and local sustainable food, but even he acknowledges some of its flaws. In this book, he notes that although farms adhere to the organic standards established by the federal government, a consumer may not exactly be buying into the idea of the small, local farms that people think they are supporting when they buy organic. In reality, farms ship over long distribution channels and prepackage foods as well – it has turned into a highly profitable market. Additionally, people like Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute Center for Global Food Issues states that “organic foods have never been shown to be healthier, more nutritious or more safe than conventional foods”.
Even Whitman acknowledges the advantage of using genetic modification in foods. She cites the ability to be pest resistant which prevents farmers from experiencing devastating losses and starvation for developing countries. Additionally, plants are more resistant to diseases, cold, drought and salinity. She claims that as the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food productions, farmers will need to grow plants in land previously not suited for plant cultivation and will need stronger plants. She states that it provides nutrition for third world countries and those genetically modifying plants will lead to cheaper pharmaceuticals because plant extraction will be cheaper.
Conclusion
In the highly controversial debate surrounding food production, questions remain such as: whether or not more is better, or is it rather quality over quantity. Still, quality issues are put to the test in regards to the growing hunger crisis across the world. However, if we are producing food at a higher rate with shortcuts to higher returns, are we ultimately paying the greatest price by sacrificing our health and safety along with the benefits of production. One thing remains certain, that technology has certainly come a long way and developments for this debate will only continue to grow with time.
Sources:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
http://www.grouptrails.com/E071406/organic_demystified.htm
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_business/article/0,2777,DRMN_23916_4862523,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/specials/2000/organic.debate.ciampa/index.html
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
When it comes to the topic of food consumption here in the United States most of us will readily agree that we are left (most of the time intentionally) in the dark about what is in the food we are consuming on a regular basis. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not it is necessary to know what you are consuming and how these alterations will ultimately affect your health. Whereas some are convinced that Genetically Modified Foods and processed meat are highly beneficial for the economy and increasing demands, while others maintain that we need to focus more on local farming and food production.
The Issue At Hand
This is obviously an issue that has been getting a great deal of mainstream attention with such movies as Food Inc. and Supersize Me. Not only is a cause for somewhat of a controversy which has forced companies like McDonald’s to integrate more health options, but it is a very in-depth debate with many layers. First, the debate arouses issues around the use of chemicals in our meat and crops. From there, it draws into question as to whether organic farming truly is the solution it seems to be, or whether it is just a marketing ploy to give consumers a false sense of security.
Pro-Organics
According to Deborah B. Whitman, in an article entitled Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?, the GM debate was just broaching the surface. While she does outline the debate, she also goes in depth as to what exactly a GM food is. According to the FDA and USDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization – including tomatoes and cantaloupes which carry modified ripening characteristics and foods like cotton which are resistant to insects. Highly processed foods, such as breakfast cereals will contain some amount of genetic modification. Soybeans and corn are the most widely grown crops, and 75% of them contain genetic modification to date. Most importantly, labeling of these foods is solely based off demand, and agribusiness argues that they will only label if necessary to meet the demands of the free market. Yet, through this alteration of the genetic make-up of plants there are still issues of health that are being raised by organic enthusiasts and farmers on the effects of this modification.
In Whitman’s informative essay, she goes into depth to explain the pro’s and con’s of the food debate. First, there is a great deal of unintended harm to other organisms from the production of genetically modified food. In 1999, the mortality rates in the monarch and butterfly population skyrocketed causing damage to the food chain due to the consumption of corn pollen. Additionally, pesticides are becoming more and more ineffective and of gene transfer to non-target species. This, however, only outlines the risks involved in crop production as the human risks are still yet to be investigated.
In terms of human health risks, Whitman notes that many children in the U.S. have began to develop life threatening food allergies and many are concerned a new allergen is being produced by these new foods. Thus, this is the basis for the argument requiring labels on GM foods. Importantly, the issue that the new genes introduced into our food may have unknown future health risks. In some studies, scientists have found substantial differences in the digestive tracts of rats who consume genetic and non-genetic foods.
Still, we are left with the issue of animal consumption to human health. It is not so much that eating animals are bad in and of themselves, the problem relates to their consumption of GM corn as well as growth hormones, which is not natural to their consumption and ultimately argued to be unhealthy for humans. Nutritionist Cathryn D. Blue argues that factory farm animals are: higher in fat, increased levels of hormone use in animals is leading to early onset puberty for men and women and there is evidence that pesticides cause cancer.
Nothing Wrong With Modification
Michael Pollan is a very big name in the growing food debate and has been a strong advocate for organic and local sustainable food, but even he acknowledges some of its flaws. In this book, he notes that although farms adhere to the organic standards established by the federal government, a consumer may not exactly be buying into the idea of the small, local farms that people think they are supporting when they buy organic. In reality, farms ship over long distribution channels and prepackage foods as well – it has turned into a highly profitable market. Additionally, people like Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute Center for Global Food Issues states that “organic foods have never been shown to be healthier, more nutritious or more safe than conventional foods”.
Even Whitman acknowledges the advantage of using genetic modification in foods. She cites the ability to be pest resistant which prevents farmers from experiencing devastating losses and starvation for developing countries. Additionally, plants are more resistant to diseases, cold, drought and salinity. She claims that as the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food productions, farmers will need to grow plants in land previously not suited for plant cultivation and will need stronger plants. She states that it provides nutrition for third world countries and those genetically modifying plants will lead to cheaper pharmaceuticals because plant extraction will be cheaper.
Conclusion
In the highly controversial debate surrounding food production, questions remain such as: whether or not more is better, or is it rather quality over quantity. Still, quality issues are put to the test in regards to the growing hunger crisis across the world. However, if we are producing food at a higher rate with shortcuts to higher returns, are we ultimately paying the greatest price by sacrificing our health and safety along with the benefits of production. One thing remains certain, that technology has certainly come a long way and developments for this debate will only continue to grow with time.
Sources:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
http://www.grouptrails.com/E071406/organic_demystified.htm
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_business/article/0,2777,DRMN_23916_4862523,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/specials/2000/organic.debate.ciampa/index.html
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Dear Uncle... (a letter of persuasion)
The Problem
As my Great Uncle approaches his early 70's his health is slowly fading. Though he lived through the war, and experienced harsh times of famine and poverty associated with leaving Germany, these are not the things that are ultimately causing his health to fade - it is his dependency on smoking. Most recently, he was hospitalized for this exact reason as cancer is now forming in his lungs. Loosing the ability to breathe, he is now dependent on a respirator yet still cannot find it within himself to kick the habit. It is slowly killing him, and it is a sad thing to watch his induced battle with addiction slowly take a toll on his life.
Dear Uncle Deter,
As even you yourself have admitted, smoking is finally catching up to you. I know at the time when you were younger, you really couldn't help yourself - everyone smoked. I can recall Grandpa telling me stories of where you were kids, that it was the norm. People smoked indoors, during dinner, after dinner and throughout the day: it was simple the norm. To not smoke during the time you were raised and the time you grew up could easily be an understatement. You had two parents who were avid smokers and one who even accidentally set the house on fire because of it. In that type of environment anyone would have picked up the habit, I would think that it would be impossible not to. During the war, smoking was comforting during the long nights of violence. Once you came to America during the 50's and 60's it was a pass time that most everyone partook in. It was social and oftentimes charming to do so.
Though I do not smoke myself, I have never had a problem with it. I have many friends that do, and can understand the implications of doing so. As we are growing up and finding ourselves, it is understandable to want to try new things to determine what you like and what you don't like. In this context, I can understand the urge. Further, having friends currently struggling to kick the habit themselves, I can understand the absolute withdrawal that is caused from denying you yourself the nicotine your body craves. I have one friend who had chewed his fingers down to the core as an effect of the cravings. So, to kick a habit that has consumed you for so long would understandably be unbearable.
Still, in this day an age the norm has become just the opposite. As a society who used to open its doors and airplanes, for that matter, to all those who smoke is now turning its back on the same habit. A country that was once rich from the production of tobacco is now requiring strict regulations on its growth, requiring demonizing warning labels and kicking up costs to sky-high prices. While these measures may seem a little extreme, they come well supported with years of research and tough consequences. While, arguable, it is not so much the tobacco that kills, it is all the other chemicals they put into just one cigarette. Today, legislation has abandoned the smokers rights so much so that those who smoke cannot even stand within 20 feet of a walkway. We have abandoned this notion of smoking as a social past time and smoking as a trend and have instead adopted this idea of smoking as a drug that could potentially kill you.
Though I know you realize it, smoking is killing you. The only way to prevent worsening the damage it has already done would be to at least try to cut down. While I understand that quitting for you might be an impossibility, it would be beneficial for you to at least make an effort to try to quit. The money you would save would be incredible. Further, because the rest of your family has quit, it would not leave you in isolating situations where you are alone and smoking while everyone else is inside talking. Most importantly, it is for your health. You are an important member of our family, and though your jokes are sometimes inappropriate (as most German's jokes are) it would be hard to ever imagine a family get together without your contagious laughter. So please, I ask that you even just try to quit instead of giving up. Though you find your situation hopeless, there is always something you can do - even if it is just not to perpetuate the problem. Do it for not only your family, but for yourself.
With love.
As my Great Uncle approaches his early 70's his health is slowly fading. Though he lived through the war, and experienced harsh times of famine and poverty associated with leaving Germany, these are not the things that are ultimately causing his health to fade - it is his dependency on smoking. Most recently, he was hospitalized for this exact reason as cancer is now forming in his lungs. Loosing the ability to breathe, he is now dependent on a respirator yet still cannot find it within himself to kick the habit. It is slowly killing him, and it is a sad thing to watch his induced battle with addiction slowly take a toll on his life.
Dear Uncle Deter,
As even you yourself have admitted, smoking is finally catching up to you. I know at the time when you were younger, you really couldn't help yourself - everyone smoked. I can recall Grandpa telling me stories of where you were kids, that it was the norm. People smoked indoors, during dinner, after dinner and throughout the day: it was simple the norm. To not smoke during the time you were raised and the time you grew up could easily be an understatement. You had two parents who were avid smokers and one who even accidentally set the house on fire because of it. In that type of environment anyone would have picked up the habit, I would think that it would be impossible not to. During the war, smoking was comforting during the long nights of violence. Once you came to America during the 50's and 60's it was a pass time that most everyone partook in. It was social and oftentimes charming to do so.
Though I do not smoke myself, I have never had a problem with it. I have many friends that do, and can understand the implications of doing so. As we are growing up and finding ourselves, it is understandable to want to try new things to determine what you like and what you don't like. In this context, I can understand the urge. Further, having friends currently struggling to kick the habit themselves, I can understand the absolute withdrawal that is caused from denying you yourself the nicotine your body craves. I have one friend who had chewed his fingers down to the core as an effect of the cravings. So, to kick a habit that has consumed you for so long would understandably be unbearable.
Still, in this day an age the norm has become just the opposite. As a society who used to open its doors and airplanes, for that matter, to all those who smoke is now turning its back on the same habit. A country that was once rich from the production of tobacco is now requiring strict regulations on its growth, requiring demonizing warning labels and kicking up costs to sky-high prices. While these measures may seem a little extreme, they come well supported with years of research and tough consequences. While, arguable, it is not so much the tobacco that kills, it is all the other chemicals they put into just one cigarette. Today, legislation has abandoned the smokers rights so much so that those who smoke cannot even stand within 20 feet of a walkway. We have abandoned this notion of smoking as a social past time and smoking as a trend and have instead adopted this idea of smoking as a drug that could potentially kill you.
Though I know you realize it, smoking is killing you. The only way to prevent worsening the damage it has already done would be to at least try to cut down. While I understand that quitting for you might be an impossibility, it would be beneficial for you to at least make an effort to try to quit. The money you would save would be incredible. Further, because the rest of your family has quit, it would not leave you in isolating situations where you are alone and smoking while everyone else is inside talking. Most importantly, it is for your health. You are an important member of our family, and though your jokes are sometimes inappropriate (as most German's jokes are) it would be hard to ever imagine a family get together without your contagious laughter. So please, I ask that you even just try to quit instead of giving up. Though you find your situation hopeless, there is always something you can do - even if it is just not to perpetuate the problem. Do it for not only your family, but for yourself.
With love.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Dear Editor...
I have always held onto the belief that police officers are the gatekeepers of our security. When it comes to the topic of our safety, most of us will readily agree that police officers have always and will always continue to serve us. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of our role in these measures of safety.
In regards to Sue Rahr's powerful and moving article she touched on several issues, spanning from the severity of the pain endured by the police community to the out-pouring of support by the local community. Yet, there is one message that seems to resonate supreme above them all: it is the idea that safety is the responsibility of both law enforcement and community collaboration.
In all times of hurt we become united and feel a sense of compassion toward our neighbors. In this, we feel connected and empowered as a people. Over time, it is easy to loose the ability to embrace the bonds in which we share. Often times, we forget or we become to busy or we just outright ignore it. Yet, it is crucial to realize the necessity that is a community. While police have always and will always be our protectors, it is important to remember how we can help one another even in small acts every day.
Though, we all get busy and we are all in a hurry; I encourage everyone to stop, look around and embrace the people around us. It is those people that may lend an unexpected helping hand when times get rough.
In regards to Sue Rahr's powerful and moving article she touched on several issues, spanning from the severity of the pain endured by the police community to the out-pouring of support by the local community. Yet, there is one message that seems to resonate supreme above them all: it is the idea that safety is the responsibility of both law enforcement and community collaboration.
In all times of hurt we become united and feel a sense of compassion toward our neighbors. In this, we feel connected and empowered as a people. Over time, it is easy to loose the ability to embrace the bonds in which we share. Often times, we forget or we become to busy or we just outright ignore it. Yet, it is crucial to realize the necessity that is a community. While police have always and will always be our protectors, it is important to remember how we can help one another even in small acts every day.
Though, we all get busy and we are all in a hurry; I encourage everyone to stop, look around and embrace the people around us. It is those people that may lend an unexpected helping hand when times get rough.
The Debate on China
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/opinion/14kristof.html?ref=opinion
Debate Summary
To follow the debate on Chinese censorship will undoubtedly lead you down a very interesting path of two conflicting political views. While we tend to project our westernized views of censorship onto the communist nation, they argue that it is simply the law and the law is to be abided by. However, in the beginning of 2010, the American company Google stated that they will no longer censor search results in China even if that means they must withdraw their search engine from the country. This action by Google could have some serious implications for how American companies adjust their practices by setting a new precedent in the Asian-superpower.
From A Believers Perspective
As Mr. Kristof states, Google is truly “showing spine – a kind that few other companies or governments have shown towards Beijing.” This act is not only groundbreaking but it is a bold move to stand up to a country that no other company has done before. Through Google’s new stance, it will make it harder for a county who is increasingly devoting itself to cyberwarfe to infiltrate such a dominant server in America. Secondly, it is taking a stance against China’s fear of modernization. It comes down to a human rights issue, and that of privacy. Google is standing up for the right of the individual and protecting the privacy of its customers – unlike Yahoo, where people were imprisoned as a result of Chinese e-mail infiltration.
From a Doubters Perspective
It is easy coming from a Western perspective to place doubt or blame on other countries views. We see our ethnocentrism forced onto many views and beliefs that are different than ours – a common theme we have seen time and time again throughout history. Yet, within the scope of censorship, who are we to say what is right and what is wrong for another country. In this situation, an American company is placing their product into Chinese territory and breaking their law. The article goes onto articulate the Chinese Government’s argument but does nothing to emphasize the fact that America is not acting in accordance to the Law of China. Period. Additionally, censorship employs tens of thousands of people who are paid to edit the content – further stimulating the economy. Who are we to say what is right and what is wrong, especially when the censorship debate here on American soil is still continuing.
The Rhetorical Situation
The author of this article is Nicholas D. Kristof, an opinion writer for the New York Times. One thing I appreciated about his stance on the situation is the fact that he has lived in China in the early 1990’s so he does have an understanding of the way censorship works and what they implications are for a citizen of the country. Our communication with China and how we do business is a very need-to-know situation in America, constraints are equally important. While the author does go on to describe the political situation, he does so from a very American perspective of censorship. In this country, we see it more so as a violation of human rights. Yet, in this same way we view things such as ‘hate speech’, ‘slander’ and ‘libel’ much in the same way as the Chinese government might see attacks on their administration. Yet, we view protection on a much more individualized level, so we are quick to criticize that where individual liberties are taken away. Obviously as an American reading the New York Times, I see Chinese policy as a breach of this liberty that we in American are innately guaranteed, much like the author.
Debate Summary
To follow the debate on Chinese censorship will undoubtedly lead you down a very interesting path of two conflicting political views. While we tend to project our westernized views of censorship onto the communist nation, they argue that it is simply the law and the law is to be abided by. However, in the beginning of 2010, the American company Google stated that they will no longer censor search results in China even if that means they must withdraw their search engine from the country. This action by Google could have some serious implications for how American companies adjust their practices by setting a new precedent in the Asian-superpower.
From A Believers Perspective
As Mr. Kristof states, Google is truly “showing spine – a kind that few other companies or governments have shown towards Beijing.” This act is not only groundbreaking but it is a bold move to stand up to a country that no other company has done before. Through Google’s new stance, it will make it harder for a county who is increasingly devoting itself to cyberwarfe to infiltrate such a dominant server in America. Secondly, it is taking a stance against China’s fear of modernization. It comes down to a human rights issue, and that of privacy. Google is standing up for the right of the individual and protecting the privacy of its customers – unlike Yahoo, where people were imprisoned as a result of Chinese e-mail infiltration.
From a Doubters Perspective
It is easy coming from a Western perspective to place doubt or blame on other countries views. We see our ethnocentrism forced onto many views and beliefs that are different than ours – a common theme we have seen time and time again throughout history. Yet, within the scope of censorship, who are we to say what is right and what is wrong for another country. In this situation, an American company is placing their product into Chinese territory and breaking their law. The article goes onto articulate the Chinese Government’s argument but does nothing to emphasize the fact that America is not acting in accordance to the Law of China. Period. Additionally, censorship employs tens of thousands of people who are paid to edit the content – further stimulating the economy. Who are we to say what is right and what is wrong, especially when the censorship debate here on American soil is still continuing.
The Rhetorical Situation
The author of this article is Nicholas D. Kristof, an opinion writer for the New York Times. One thing I appreciated about his stance on the situation is the fact that he has lived in China in the early 1990’s so he does have an understanding of the way censorship works and what they implications are for a citizen of the country. Our communication with China and how we do business is a very need-to-know situation in America, constraints are equally important. While the author does go on to describe the political situation, he does so from a very American perspective of censorship. In this country, we see it more so as a violation of human rights. Yet, in this same way we view things such as ‘hate speech’, ‘slander’ and ‘libel’ much in the same way as the Chinese government might see attacks on their administration. Yet, we view protection on a much more individualized level, so we are quick to criticize that where individual liberties are taken away. Obviously as an American reading the New York Times, I see Chinese policy as a breach of this liberty that we in American are innately guaranteed, much like the author.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Lakewood Tradegy - Finding Commonplace
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2010656223_guest04rahr.html
It is hard to even begin to understand the brutality of an police murder, but when there is multiple murders over the course of several months - it is unthinkable. We admittedly cannot understand the pain of the police officers around Washington State, or around the country for that matter. I could only imagine that a sense of security that they never fully even had to begin with has been stripped away to the point of nonexistence. It is a reminder that people, good and terrible are capable of anything. It is, however, also a reminder that police officers serve us everyday, selflessly.
While we can never truly understand the pain endured by the officers after those multiple tragedy's, we begin to feel that emptiness as Sheriff Rahr describes how it feels to experiences that loss. "The closest I can come to describing how many of us feel is to ask that you remember how you felt in the weeks and months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It's like that." With that, we are able to recall that feeling of emptiness that we have been violated. I remember that feeling, as I am sure we all do. It was a feeling of always being suspect to your surroundings. Never fully understating why and ultimately feeling hopeless to protect yourself. It was a feeling that maybe can never go away and is surely never forgotten.
It is with this description that we can begin to relate to the author. Though, we know we can never fully comprehend the extend of the tragedy because we are not police officers, it is an emptiness that we have all at one time felt.It is with this that she describes what exists for her: it is a feeling of this empty, insecure place that we cannot fully understand unless we experience. What is absent here is the feeling that she can trust people fully without taking a second look at them. It is that assumption that she considers a handicap in moving forward and moving on. However, she also acknowledges a community, a great one. One full of love, support and hope that works to take away the pain - if only for a moment. There is still good out there in the world, there is still a good world full of honest people that she needs not forget.
In terms of degree, it is obvious that her pain is greater than the norm. While the public is hurting, she has lost a comrade and a part of herself. The definition of her job will change forever and her views. Thins have been better in the past and though she has not lived in ignorance, the reality of her job becomes more real in the event of this tragedy.
While it may never be possible to forget, it is possible to see good in others and slowly heal. She outlines small acts of kindness that undoubtedly help her grow in this process. Yet, as we never forget the vulnerability that we felt after September 11, that feeling will be forever present in her work and it will never be forgotten; much in the same way we always hope nothing bad will happen on a plane when we are flying. While we can move past it and fly once again, it will never be forgotten as a real threat which could ultimately change our opinions of something we may have felt free of fear from in the past.
It is hard to even begin to understand the brutality of an police murder, but when there is multiple murders over the course of several months - it is unthinkable. We admittedly cannot understand the pain of the police officers around Washington State, or around the country for that matter. I could only imagine that a sense of security that they never fully even had to begin with has been stripped away to the point of nonexistence. It is a reminder that people, good and terrible are capable of anything. It is, however, also a reminder that police officers serve us everyday, selflessly.
While we can never truly understand the pain endured by the officers after those multiple tragedy's, we begin to feel that emptiness as Sheriff Rahr describes how it feels to experiences that loss. "The closest I can come to describing how many of us feel is to ask that you remember how you felt in the weeks and months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It's like that." With that, we are able to recall that feeling of emptiness that we have been violated. I remember that feeling, as I am sure we all do. It was a feeling of always being suspect to your surroundings. Never fully understating why and ultimately feeling hopeless to protect yourself. It was a feeling that maybe can never go away and is surely never forgotten.
It is with this description that we can begin to relate to the author. Though, we know we can never fully comprehend the extend of the tragedy because we are not police officers, it is an emptiness that we have all at one time felt.It is with this that she describes what exists for her: it is a feeling of this empty, insecure place that we cannot fully understand unless we experience. What is absent here is the feeling that she can trust people fully without taking a second look at them. It is that assumption that she considers a handicap in moving forward and moving on. However, she also acknowledges a community, a great one. One full of love, support and hope that works to take away the pain - if only for a moment. There is still good out there in the world, there is still a good world full of honest people that she needs not forget.
In terms of degree, it is obvious that her pain is greater than the norm. While the public is hurting, she has lost a comrade and a part of herself. The definition of her job will change forever and her views. Thins have been better in the past and though she has not lived in ignorance, the reality of her job becomes more real in the event of this tragedy.
While it may never be possible to forget, it is possible to see good in others and slowly heal. She outlines small acts of kindness that undoubtedly help her grow in this process. Yet, as we never forget the vulnerability that we felt after September 11, that feeling will be forever present in her work and it will never be forgotten; much in the same way we always hope nothing bad will happen on a plane when we are flying. While we can move past it and fly once again, it will never be forgotten as a real threat which could ultimately change our opinions of something we may have felt free of fear from in the past.
2010 - The Year of the Grown-Up
2010. I am still trying to get used to writing it. As we march full speed into the new year, it is only approporiate to say that it started out on a good foot hopefully setting a precident for the next year to come. This is the year that all the hard work that I have done while here at Seattle University will come to frutition and I will havr some life changing decisions to make.
It is an interesting year to graduate. It is an interesting world right now in general. This generation sits at the crux of ever evolving technology and the way we look at the world is undoubtedly different than that of our parents. Still, at the end of my particular path leads several options which all shine bright: one leads to convention - a direction in which I always thought I would take, where I seem to belong and a career choice that everyone things to suit me well. The other: chance. Those career choices which dont seem as conventional or safe, the ones that lead me to international lands, the ones that may be a little bit less uncertain but if done right could have the greatest retuens in regards to my own personal happiness.
I am undoubtedly stuck, but I still have time. Overall, though, I would rather have too many options than not enought. Ultimatly, I am very lucky and I trust myself to make the best decisions for me. No doubt, this new year will be filled with love, travel, luxury and happiness. I welcome in a decade of growth and am axious for the journey.
It is an interesting year to graduate. It is an interesting world right now in general. This generation sits at the crux of ever evolving technology and the way we look at the world is undoubtedly different than that of our parents. Still, at the end of my particular path leads several options which all shine bright: one leads to convention - a direction in which I always thought I would take, where I seem to belong and a career choice that everyone things to suit me well. The other: chance. Those career choices which dont seem as conventional or safe, the ones that lead me to international lands, the ones that may be a little bit less uncertain but if done right could have the greatest retuens in regards to my own personal happiness.
I am undoubtedly stuck, but I still have time. Overall, though, I would rather have too many options than not enought. Ultimatly, I am very lucky and I trust myself to make the best decisions for me. No doubt, this new year will be filled with love, travel, luxury and happiness. I welcome in a decade of growth and am axious for the journey.
The Unusual Seattleite
So I have heard that it is a crime of a native Seattleite to not drink coffee. I have heard this story before. Call me crazy, but upon seeing my mother relentlessly get her two lattes a day before she could properly function, I thought it was a better idea to hedge my bets against it and opt for something a little more nutritious and a little less expensive.
I have found other sources of caffeine that would make any coffee drinker proud. My favorite recommendation is that of Remedy Tea on 15th avenue. With over 150 different exotic flavors of tea, you can change it up every day for almost a year and never find yourself unsatisfied. Additionally, the interesting inventions such as baked apple arouse your taste buds in a way you never knew possible or probable.
What is best is the sleek modern environment it offers that appears to be right out of Scandinavia. It's trendy, smart and best of all delicious.
I have found other sources of caffeine that would make any coffee drinker proud. My favorite recommendation is that of Remedy Tea on 15th avenue. With over 150 different exotic flavors of tea, you can change it up every day for almost a year and never find yourself unsatisfied. Additionally, the interesting inventions such as baked apple arouse your taste buds in a way you never knew possible or probable.
What is best is the sleek modern environment it offers that appears to be right out of Scandinavia. It's trendy, smart and best of all delicious.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Michelle Obama - The Rhetorician
President Obama is considered a true and important rhetorician of our time. With his ability to communicate and captivate people, he was able to bring people together through a common cause and purpose and give new hope and meaning to the word ‘change’. However, President Obama is not the only member of his family with the ability to strongly connect to their audience; little attention is ever focused on Michelle Obama as being truly masterful with her words. Yet, she proved to everyone during the National Democratic Convention that she does, in fact, have the keen ability to connect to her audience and make herself highly relatable. She addresses the 4 Principles of the Rhetoric Primer as developed by Dr. Peter Marston successfully to generate a truly compelling and empowering speech.
Advisory – What is her advice to the audience?
The first of the principles relates to the idea of giving advice to an audience, which can reflect a world view and demonstrates ones personal values. In any society we always have ways of arranging our vales through the speeches that we give. In essence, it is a projection of ourselves and the cultural norms that have not only shaped us but have helped shaped the standards of society. Michelle importantly does an excellent job at not preaching to her audience but working to relate to them to send a clear message of hope and a dream fulfilled.
In her speech, she works to emphasize how the new Administration is working for the individual. In essence, it is a clear reassurance that the support they have received will be returned by the restored hope they had promised to the general public. Towards the end of her speech she emphasizes the idea of ‘hope’. In this way, she states how Barack “knows the tread that connects us: our belief in America’s promise, our commitment to our children’s future – he knows that the thread is strong enough to hold us together as one nation even when we don’t disagree”. This is a very important sentence. She here is acknowledging that even though you might not vote for Obama, he is committed to unifying us a people. She is recognizing our differences and our variable opinions, and emphasizing that despite that we are to remain as a cohesive unit. She emphasizes that change will come and most importantly implies that the future of ‘the children’ and the nation will be protected.
Addressed – Who is her audience and what are their concerns?
Another key element to any successful piece of rhetoric is the idea of giving life to a message. Here, you address the audience as listeners, and you make inferences about them to connect them to the message that you are trying to convey to them. The First Lady does an excellent job at accomplishing this feat. In this instance Michelle starts off by telling a story. She begins to relate to the audience almost immediately by addressing her brother. In this instance, the audience is the American public. She is not only addressing those who support her husband, but it is necessary to confront and comfort her critics, so it is very important what types of messages she is trying to send, and for what purpose she is sending those messages.
In terms of confronting her critics, she is not so much attempting to be aggressive but rather emphasizing the accomplishments that Barack has completed. Throughout the campaign there were many concerns about his intentions as well as his experience level. Michelle works to put these fears to rest. She emphasizes his commitment to public service, stating that instead of going to Wall Street and perhaps being greedy he instead went to serve the community. She makes a point to individualize and almost give life to those particular people as she exemplifies the hard-working, blue collar Americans individually that he has worked to help. She here, is reaching out to every American – the blue collar workers, the people in the high school gyms, etc. She is attempting to include the general (and it seems more concentrated on the working) public.
It is significant to the election to make the speech as inclusive as possible. In many instances in the speech (almost all) when she is making a reference to the nation, she uses examples of individuals exe: the mother he met who is worried about her child in Iraq. She does this to emphasize this issues that are on the minds of the general public and uses them to notably express that they are the concerns of the new administration. During the election Iraq was a concern, education was a concern and so was health care. In her speech, she names all of these issues and uses people to make those issues more intimate to her listeners. To her critics, she emphasizes Barack as a strong and compassionate leader who is truly and genuinely concerned about the well being of the people he encounters.
Another thing that was potentially interesting is how she addresses Barack. She describes that when she met him he had his “funny name” and “lived across the continent in Hawaii” their families were similar. She then goes on to emphasize his relation to the hard working blue collar America and even describes his single mother working to support them. His citizenship and his name were two concerns during his campaign and she addresses them but quickly dispels them as being a concern. She continues on to emphasize that he is more relatable then people may realize.
Situational – What are the ‘needs’ of the audience that bring the speech into being?
In a given piece of rhetoric, you need to respond to the needs present. In this instance, this is obviously very significant with regards to the situation. In this particular situation she is trying to do two things: first, she is trying to introduce herself to her audience, and secondly she is trying to empower the message of the administration and bring confidence to the listeners. They ‘need’ to understand Barack as a compassionate leader and by Michelle showing compassion as a mother and a wife. She needs to give a face and a soul to the campaign and truly bring a sense of calm and confidence to her audience.
Importantly, she cyclically brings into focus once again the message and dream of Martin Luther King Jr.’s idea of ‘the dream’. Of course, this election is significant due in part to this dream being reached – an African American is elected into the White House. This is history in the making, this is a new era; Michelle pays homage to this accomplished idea of change for a country and its prejudices. She works to remind the audience of the past, but emphasizes the hope of that message to move them forward into the future. This is a very appropriate and powerful message that she is sending to the public, and it is a very appropriate time to come. By saying ‘look how far we have come, but let’s not forget the dream’ she is catapulting the campaign into a whole new dimension.
Another thing that The First Lady does is acknowledge the others in the new administration who have made an impact. She discusses Hilary Clinton who worked to put “18 million cracks in that class ceiling so that our daughters and our sons can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher”. Further she addresses Joe Biden who, Like Obama, works to help the American worker. Most importantly she puts the focus on Barack as not only being an important leader but a compassionate person who is dedicated to his causes, such as healthcare.
Stylized – What are the stylistic choices she is making and what is the impact?
The essence of a speech is the design or the layout of it. In the Presidents campaign, much like that of Martin Luther King Jr. he offered an idea to his audience, but did it with very clear purpose and intention. Obama offered his listeners the idea of ‘change’ and kept it broad enough so that his audience could project themselves onto this idea as well. The First Lady was successful in staying true to the theme of the entire campaign of which her husband was trying to advocate. Yet, whereas the Presidents message of change was rather broad and interpretive, The First Lady utilized this same message but narrowed it down to a much more personable level – on an individualized family level.
The key element to her speech is to really connect to her audience and introduce herself as a relatable, articulate and confident First Lady. There are many elements of her language that work to accomplish this. Again, she starts off with a story about her compassion for her brother. She precedes that with a description of her as a mother, and her compassion for her children. Her words for any mother are truly compelling and she describes them as being the absolute center of her world. Yet, she makes a point to assert that she shares mutual fears and, like any sensible parent, only hopes to acquire a bright future for her daughters. Next, she describes herself as a daughter, with strong family ties and roots in blue collar America. This again, makes her relatable and she works to encompass all aspects of womanhood.
Overall, Michelle Obama is an excellent rhetorician. Though, often subtle, her words make an impact. She is relatable, confident and equipped with a powerful message of hope and change. With that, she hopes to ignite the campaign further and rally the American people behind a cause she feels so strongly about. It is a truly powerful and important speech.
Advisory – What is her advice to the audience?
The first of the principles relates to the idea of giving advice to an audience, which can reflect a world view and demonstrates ones personal values. In any society we always have ways of arranging our vales through the speeches that we give. In essence, it is a projection of ourselves and the cultural norms that have not only shaped us but have helped shaped the standards of society. Michelle importantly does an excellent job at not preaching to her audience but working to relate to them to send a clear message of hope and a dream fulfilled.
In her speech, she works to emphasize how the new Administration is working for the individual. In essence, it is a clear reassurance that the support they have received will be returned by the restored hope they had promised to the general public. Towards the end of her speech she emphasizes the idea of ‘hope’. In this way, she states how Barack “knows the tread that connects us: our belief in America’s promise, our commitment to our children’s future – he knows that the thread is strong enough to hold us together as one nation even when we don’t disagree”. This is a very important sentence. She here is acknowledging that even though you might not vote for Obama, he is committed to unifying us a people. She is recognizing our differences and our variable opinions, and emphasizing that despite that we are to remain as a cohesive unit. She emphasizes that change will come and most importantly implies that the future of ‘the children’ and the nation will be protected.
Addressed – Who is her audience and what are their concerns?
Another key element to any successful piece of rhetoric is the idea of giving life to a message. Here, you address the audience as listeners, and you make inferences about them to connect them to the message that you are trying to convey to them. The First Lady does an excellent job at accomplishing this feat. In this instance Michelle starts off by telling a story. She begins to relate to the audience almost immediately by addressing her brother. In this instance, the audience is the American public. She is not only addressing those who support her husband, but it is necessary to confront and comfort her critics, so it is very important what types of messages she is trying to send, and for what purpose she is sending those messages.
In terms of confronting her critics, she is not so much attempting to be aggressive but rather emphasizing the accomplishments that Barack has completed. Throughout the campaign there were many concerns about his intentions as well as his experience level. Michelle works to put these fears to rest. She emphasizes his commitment to public service, stating that instead of going to Wall Street and perhaps being greedy he instead went to serve the community. She makes a point to individualize and almost give life to those particular people as she exemplifies the hard-working, blue collar Americans individually that he has worked to help. She here, is reaching out to every American – the blue collar workers, the people in the high school gyms, etc. She is attempting to include the general (and it seems more concentrated on the working) public.
It is significant to the election to make the speech as inclusive as possible. In many instances in the speech (almost all) when she is making a reference to the nation, she uses examples of individuals exe: the mother he met who is worried about her child in Iraq. She does this to emphasize this issues that are on the minds of the general public and uses them to notably express that they are the concerns of the new administration. During the election Iraq was a concern, education was a concern and so was health care. In her speech, she names all of these issues and uses people to make those issues more intimate to her listeners. To her critics, she emphasizes Barack as a strong and compassionate leader who is truly and genuinely concerned about the well being of the people he encounters.
Another thing that was potentially interesting is how she addresses Barack. She describes that when she met him he had his “funny name” and “lived across the continent in Hawaii” their families were similar. She then goes on to emphasize his relation to the hard working blue collar America and even describes his single mother working to support them. His citizenship and his name were two concerns during his campaign and she addresses them but quickly dispels them as being a concern. She continues on to emphasize that he is more relatable then people may realize.
Situational – What are the ‘needs’ of the audience that bring the speech into being?
In a given piece of rhetoric, you need to respond to the needs present. In this instance, this is obviously very significant with regards to the situation. In this particular situation she is trying to do two things: first, she is trying to introduce herself to her audience, and secondly she is trying to empower the message of the administration and bring confidence to the listeners. They ‘need’ to understand Barack as a compassionate leader and by Michelle showing compassion as a mother and a wife. She needs to give a face and a soul to the campaign and truly bring a sense of calm and confidence to her audience.
Importantly, she cyclically brings into focus once again the message and dream of Martin Luther King Jr.’s idea of ‘the dream’. Of course, this election is significant due in part to this dream being reached – an African American is elected into the White House. This is history in the making, this is a new era; Michelle pays homage to this accomplished idea of change for a country and its prejudices. She works to remind the audience of the past, but emphasizes the hope of that message to move them forward into the future. This is a very appropriate and powerful message that she is sending to the public, and it is a very appropriate time to come. By saying ‘look how far we have come, but let’s not forget the dream’ she is catapulting the campaign into a whole new dimension.
Another thing that The First Lady does is acknowledge the others in the new administration who have made an impact. She discusses Hilary Clinton who worked to put “18 million cracks in that class ceiling so that our daughters and our sons can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher”. Further she addresses Joe Biden who, Like Obama, works to help the American worker. Most importantly she puts the focus on Barack as not only being an important leader but a compassionate person who is dedicated to his causes, such as healthcare.
Stylized – What are the stylistic choices she is making and what is the impact?
The essence of a speech is the design or the layout of it. In the Presidents campaign, much like that of Martin Luther King Jr. he offered an idea to his audience, but did it with very clear purpose and intention. Obama offered his listeners the idea of ‘change’ and kept it broad enough so that his audience could project themselves onto this idea as well. The First Lady was successful in staying true to the theme of the entire campaign of which her husband was trying to advocate. Yet, whereas the Presidents message of change was rather broad and interpretive, The First Lady utilized this same message but narrowed it down to a much more personable level – on an individualized family level.
The key element to her speech is to really connect to her audience and introduce herself as a relatable, articulate and confident First Lady. There are many elements of her language that work to accomplish this. Again, she starts off with a story about her compassion for her brother. She precedes that with a description of her as a mother, and her compassion for her children. Her words for any mother are truly compelling and she describes them as being the absolute center of her world. Yet, she makes a point to assert that she shares mutual fears and, like any sensible parent, only hopes to acquire a bright future for her daughters. Next, she describes herself as a daughter, with strong family ties and roots in blue collar America. This again, makes her relatable and she works to encompass all aspects of womanhood.
Overall, Michelle Obama is an excellent rhetorician. Though, often subtle, her words make an impact. She is relatable, confident and equipped with a powerful message of hope and change. With that, she hopes to ignite the campaign further and rally the American people behind a cause she feels so strongly about. It is a truly powerful and important speech.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Rhetorical Assumptions
Graff and Birkenstein basaically state that academic writing should be initated as a response to something.
Dr. Bammert's Take on Rhetoric
You can interprete a great deal just though the course syllabus about the argument of rhetoric in this Persuasive and Critical Writing Class. Rhetoric quite obviously, encompasses many forms and sames - whether that be through media or public policy. There is a common thread that unites any assumption that we might make: it is the idea that rhetorical reasoning uses language as a medium to provoke thought as an argument is employed.
What is important, here, is that it is not always necessarily what is being said within a written or spoken context. The key theme of any argument is about what is not being said as well. The way a person uses language (as with any tool) speaks a lot about that person on not only a exteror level, but an interior one as well. Rhetoic is a reflection, of personal values, societal norms and culture that the person carries with them. When a person is developing an arguement, they are not only giving us insight about an issue, but with that argument they are projecting themselves and giving the audience insight as to whom they are as a person and what their place is in the world around them.
Ultimatley, it is important to understand and take a stance on an idea, becuase with that, you learn about yourself and who you are in relation to a given issue. Even if opinions greatly vary, what is key here is that we hear these opinions. In fact, the art of disagreeing and feeling strongly for or against is in and of itself a great learning tool. Within the art of forming an opinion, you can address the "why" of a given feeling as you begin to assess your own personal bias and convictions. This is a powerful tool of not only learning, but developing yourself as a person as well as a critic in your society.
It is also important that you know and learn something well enough to be able to appeal to your audience and being able to appeal to a given audience. It is importnat to undestand a given situation and various situational needs. It is crucial to understand where an argument is not just 'what' and arguement. It is an art to be able to break through what is needed and what is not in order to develop a sound and cohesive arguement.
Dr. Bammert's Take on Rhetoric
You can interprete a great deal just though the course syllabus about the argument of rhetoric in this Persuasive and Critical Writing Class. Rhetoric quite obviously, encompasses many forms and sames - whether that be through media or public policy. There is a common thread that unites any assumption that we might make: it is the idea that rhetorical reasoning uses language as a medium to provoke thought as an argument is employed.
What is important, here, is that it is not always necessarily what is being said within a written or spoken context. The key theme of any argument is about what is not being said as well. The way a person uses language (as with any tool) speaks a lot about that person on not only a exteror level, but an interior one as well. Rhetoic is a reflection, of personal values, societal norms and culture that the person carries with them. When a person is developing an arguement, they are not only giving us insight about an issue, but with that argument they are projecting themselves and giving the audience insight as to whom they are as a person and what their place is in the world around them.
Ultimatley, it is important to understand and take a stance on an idea, becuase with that, you learn about yourself and who you are in relation to a given issue. Even if opinions greatly vary, what is key here is that we hear these opinions. In fact, the art of disagreeing and feeling strongly for or against is in and of itself a great learning tool. Within the art of forming an opinion, you can address the "why" of a given feeling as you begin to assess your own personal bias and convictions. This is a powerful tool of not only learning, but developing yourself as a person as well as a critic in your society.
It is also important that you know and learn something well enough to be able to appeal to your audience and being able to appeal to a given audience. It is importnat to undestand a given situation and various situational needs. It is crucial to understand where an argument is not just 'what' and arguement. It is an art to be able to break through what is needed and what is not in order to develop a sound and cohesive arguement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)