The Bright Sadness

Just incase anyone is still checking this thing I have to do a plug for my friend Charlie's new album The Bright Sadness. It is an incredible musical journey filled with beautiful truths that we can sing to our great God in the midst of trouble and darkness. Pick it up on iTunes or anywhere you buy music.

Hillary Tackles Obama's "Experience"

Here we go again, the Hillary vs. Obama struggle. I found this little number on the Fox News website (interesting sidebar: Fox News is NOT included in the pre-programed Mac "News" favorites tab, something rhetorical in itself). Here, Clinton is commenting on Obama's statement in San Francisco, in which he said he believed "...foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain." You can see for yourself here.

Clinton did not take too kindly to this. She completely rebuked his statement when speaking to Fox News Tuesday morning, claiming to be "shocked." She said that she saw no evidence of his claim, and shot back by saying he was too busy "running for president" to keep up with foreign affairs.

What bothers me is not her outrage, but how at every possible opportunity she interjects some fact about how she knows more about foreign affairs than he does. "I've met leaders from more than 80 countries," she brags. Or, "You know, for 15 years I've been spending a lot of time in other countries."

I find it interesting rhetorically how she takes every opportunity to replace something negative about Obama with something positive about herself. I mean, who wouldn't? He's looking arrogant, and in truth, it's easier to believe that she's more experienced simply due to her history in Washington, and her age. Still, the democratic party seems to be getting a little catty.

I'm not surprised at all to see this on Fox News. This article serves to make BOTH candidates look bad: Obama is taking part in some unnecessary bragging, and Hilary is using it to her advantage. For Fox, this makes them both appear to be taking some cheap shots. I'm sure Fox is eating it up. I just wish these people would focus on policy - not talking crap, so to speak.

American Schools: Full of Bad Writers

As we're all fairly adept writers (being in a writing-based rhetoric class) I found it interesting that this New York Times article reported that only one third of eighth graders are capable of writing at the standardized "proficient" level - and only one in four high schoolers. These results were gathered according to standardized test results from a test given last year. Students previously reported to have "poor" writing skills have showed minor improvement. Apparently, education officials are pleased with the results.

Boys were worse than girls (sorry Linc and Doug), with around 40% of eighth grade girls performing at the "proficient" level and 20% of boys. The trend in schools seems to be that boys don't think writing will be important after they graduate. Overall, 33% of eighth graders are able to write with proficiency. What irritates me about this whole article is that people are pleased with these results. The article reports that these are the best test results ever. I'm glad we live in a country where we can get excited at 33% of our students performing at a proficient level. Aren't these the future leaders of the country we're talking about?

Additionally, the children who did perform well showed no improvement. This, I believe, is due to the educational system's obsession with standardized testing, setting a universal standards that children are expected to perform at, and those performing higher are not given any more challenging material.

Rhetorically, the reaction of officials to these results seems to me like forced enthusiasm in our educational system. We do not want to be disappointed with our children or the school system, so we allow ourselves to believe that 33% proficiency is good enough. Now, I know standardized testing is not necessarily an accurate measure of academic capacity. Nonetheless, the fact that the administration is so happy about this seems a little odd.

One congressman drew laughs when he blamed the lack in writing proficiency on the slow deterioration of the sentence due to fragmented writing through instant messaging and text messaging. Many thought this notion quite absurd. Nonetheless, after attending a school where I was asked on a number of dates through poorly written text messages, I can't help but think that communication skills are suffering in some way.

I wish officials would stop being so happy about mediocrity. Perhaps I'm being heartless here, but I feel like we should be aiming much higher.

7 Year-Old Shooter?

I was browsing around news websites this morning hoping to find an update on all the political drama and I stumbled upon this article about a 7-year-old child who brought 2 loaded handguns to school. Apparently the kid had one in his pocket, as a teacher discovered it when it fell out, and when his locker was searched, another loaded gun was discovered inside.

Naturally, I found this on CNN's website, as I'm sure gun control advocates are all over it. Rhetorically I would expect to find it here, as liberal media seems to support gun control far more than conservative. Personally,  I'm not one for locking guns away from the general public, but this story made me wince. I don't believe the child here is to blame - officials seem to think the child thought it was just a toy. This screams negligence from the adults involved. Wouldn't it simply make sense to keep the guns out of reach of the 7-year-old child?

Apparently the uncle who owned the guns is facing charges of endangerment. It is this sort of irresponsibility that makes be think that some people simply should not be entrusted with dangerous firearms. The problem here is twofold: Adults need to have the foresight to keep guns out of reach of children, and they need to teach kids to leave the weapon alone if they see it. Goodness.

Nonetheless, I'm sure CNN was glad to grab onto this story. More fodder for gun-control arguments, I believe, and a compelling one no matter which side you come from. No one wants to worry about a school shooting until at least middle school, after all.

Tell Me Your Coffee & I'll Tell You Your Candidate

Tuning in to All Things Considered a Sunday story really caught my interest. The name of the story is entitled Dunkin Donuts vs. Starbucks Democrats. http://www.npr.org/templates/

First of all, if I ever wondered what kind of political side this station was biased towards, my wonderment is no more. Every time I tune in to All Things Considered, the majority of the stories are targeted towards the Democrats. A democrat of the country and especially the political delegates as this is that time of year. This story is four minutes and 16 seconds, a very long story comparing the alleged “Obama Starbucks Democrats” to the “Hillary Dunkin Donuts.” The reporter mentions Dunkin Donuts poking fun at the high maintenance and empty promises of Starbucks, mocking their wii-access and comfy couches, trying to parallel the way each delegate feels about each other. The big issue in theis article claims that you can determine what kind of voter you are based on who you buy your coffee from; A big high maintenance place with flamboyant names for drinks that are incredibly overpriced OR a simple cream and sugar coffee, no gimmicks or confusing names about it, the cup is even as simple as it gets. NPR actually takes a stab at Hillary as the reporter says “Customers are looking at the rational factors: the high cost of coffee or Hillary Clinton’s Healthcare plan” inferring that both are incredibly far fetched and ridiculous to most people. The main point of this article is that customers and voters alike are swayed by their emotion, Barack leaving many voters feeling a sense of hope and excitement, while Hillary has more of a secure tone to her campaign and presence. I don’t know if it is fair to say that if I drink Starbucks I will be voting for Obama, but I do think that if politicians studied consumer and voter habits as much as big corporations did, this would be a very smart move. Both candidates could establish their brand more effectively as well as develop better relationships across the board, leading to brand, or in this case “voter loyalty.” If the big companies are doing it and becoming so successful, this could be a great way to further the progress of political candidates in a brand new way never tried before.

Girl Scouts Join the Rhetoric of Change

What is with this "change" thing that people seem to be obsessing over nowadays? It seems no one is satisfied with a single social institution and that the general consensus seems to be that everything needs reform. The Girl Scouts seem to have jumped on this bandwagon, revamping their structure to supposedly attract more people.

This really does seem like an informed decision. A common complaint among young women seems to be that they see the Girl Scouts as being too "girly," with their emphasis on crafts, cookies, and badge gathering. The new system is leaning towards a tougher program - camping out in the cold, learning to things such as change a tire or unclog faulty plumbing. Not exactly the kind of thing I see a bunch of little girls lining up to do - but nonetheless, the goal here is to shape young leaders who can function independently in society. All in all, a good plan, I think.

This reform, however, makes me wonder why the Girl Scouts chose now to change. People are pushing for change in several different areas - the Boy Scouts, the public education system, the military, the war effort, the health care system - so why are the Girl Scouts the ones to fold? Well, perhaps they aren't folding. I can't criticize the change - they do seem to be molding their system to better benefit modern young women. Nonetheless, I find it interesting that they did this now. Maybe they are anticipating future criticism. It seems that nobody is safe, after all. I just hope they keep the cookies.

NPR: May the Fluff Be With You

Often times when I think about NPR expect to see stories on subjects like the war in Iraq or immigration. Typically I think of local news channels giving in to the cheesy medium of the bleeding heart public interest features or the silly little pieces on recent pop culture phenomenon. However on visiting the front page of NPR.org in a small flash window scrolling a few fluff pieces one of which caught my eye. Being a bit of a Star Wars buff (this is the largest understatement in history) I couldn't help but click on a piece entitled "Rejected: 'Star Wars' Merchandise You'll Never Own" next to a picture of a Death Star BBQ Grille. Owning more than my fair amount of Galactic trinkets I was immediately distraught to hear of a potential possibility of more Bantha fodder no longer available. As a parade of forbidden treasures flashed before my eyes I mourned the loss of the Cloud City Lamp and my personal favorite the Jabba the Hutt Bean Bag Chair. It was about this point when it hit me that this was no social news website, but what most consider to be an elite and hard news source. While I do cut down those stories that are fluff, the truth is I probably spent more time thinking about this piece than any real news story all day.

Choosing Sides (less obviously)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

With the understanding that the news media “should” abide by the standards of objectivity I listened to Jim Lehrer’s “Newshour” and although not nearly as bad and one sided as the FoxNews video we watched in class, there are several hints of who is on whose side. In the beginning of Friday’s news segment the headlines started off as objective as they could be; stats, figure’s and numbers all inclusive of the DOW Jones Industrial Average and how the slump in Wall Street has been affecting everyone, touching on oil and energy. The second headline talked about the nation’s observance of the 5th war in Iraq. Jim Lehrer mentions every negative thing about the war, showing his ”non-objective side”. He says that 4,000 American soldier’s lives have been claimed as well as 90,000 Iraqi lives. This automatically delivers a sad and negative pathos among those viewers who were already against the war, adding more fuel to their fire. On top of this information, he mentions the outrageous figure it has taken the United States to push through on this venture: a big 500 billion dollars. They play a clip of Bush, sounding almost unintelligent on the topic; pausing and mottling his words as if signifying some uncertainties. After this clip, the host Jim Lehrer makes it a point to recognize (as if he thought they were doing justice to this issue) the hundreds of people who protested and all of the students who walked out of class from Universities just to recognize the 5th anniversary of a sad and angry time in the United States. Overall this clip was a good for minutes and one of the longest, especially for the “News Summary” portion of the show. Interestingly enough, the next story was a positive one regarding Obama and his strong eagerness to get into the white house, with promises that this cruel war will only stop if he is elected. He is modeled as almost a superman who will save us from our impending doom of 5 years. The next story discusses the Dalai Lama and all of the violence and tear gas that is just destroying a nation. After this story we touch right back home in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas as the flooding is acknowledged and flight cancellations are mentioned. It seems to me that going from the Dalai Lama and mass deaths to flooding in DFW is pretty far stretched. In the next story gender is touched upon as the infamous Louisiana murder case about the “Black” man killing his wife is told, later Jim reports “Blacks were kept off the jury.” This seems like a very liberal thing for him to say in my eyes. Maybe that is that culture and understood, even his audience quite possibly. The first impression from just viewing the first half of this show is that is more left-winged liberal. And to make the comparison between NPR and CBS, they both strongly gave Obama air time through discussion of his campaign, successes, and speeches. This leads me to believe that the Democratic Party (unlike FoxNews) has a strong hand they play in these media outlets.

All Things Considered

In exploring the rhetorical strategies employed by the media from the eyes of NPR, I will be analyzing “All Things Considered” as aired on March 18, 2008.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=03-18-2008&view=storyview
I listened to this news show using the website media they offer after 7:00 p.m. As a newcomer to the world of National Public Radio, I had assumed that there would be stories ranging from across the globe about issues that were of high importance that the nation would be interested, as a nation should have unique and varied curiosities. Interestingly enough, I realized a few other things that I did not expect to. The term National Public Radio sounds like an unbiased place where the nation can tune in and gather necessary information that will affect them in their daily lives. While listening to the radio broadcast via website the audience hears the first two stories and some of the longest (5:13sec.; 6:47sec.& 3:53sec.) on the topic of Barack Obama. The stories covered were about the racial divide Barack has had to face in the Southern states and still managed to come out on top. The second story addressed how Barack has a developed sense of speaking to different audiences through his various citations of “women hitting glass ceilings and families struggling with healthcare, jobs, and good jobs.” In both of these first two stories it is mostly Black men that are interviewed and they have nothing but positive pathos towards him. This is biased because these views are one sided, on the side of his Black male supporters, giving him free advertising in a way through NPR. The last story about Barack Obama is under the panel called “religion” explaining Barack Obama’s faith, relating the misunderstanding of it to racism. By this time in the show the listener may feel that NPR is left-winged Democrat, and that they are just trying to back their political favorite. These two stories definitely make a gender and cultural statement that they are varied in race, as the white man interviews the black interviewee. The other stories on NPR hit on the Dalai Lama being concerned about the peace in Tibet, threatening to step down if it gets worse. There is a story about China censoring the internet among its people, which may emote a sense of fear in the American public, as many fear they are already being intruded on anyway. Issues that liberals may be interested in are the gay rights in Massachusetts story, in which an amendment was looked up from long ago that “should never have been written” claimed a guest. NPR seems to have a very liberal tone, using many racial teasers as stories.

TCU's Obama Frenzy

If you've stepped onto the TCU campus today you've probably noticed the ridiculous amount of Obama signs littered about. These are handwritten and student-made, with a peace sign in the O of Obama's name. I've got nothing against these fliers - the issue I have is with the fact that I've been seeing nothing but OBAMA for the last few days, and it's getting a little ridiculous.

Where are the McCain fliers? The Hillary fliers? I feel like young people are completely backing Obama and no one else, and my question is: Why? What's the obsession, guys? I feel like the only thing I've heard Obama say is "change" - sure, change would be fantastic, but I feel like his real success is due to his oratory skills and the fact that he's got this "presence" when he's before a crowd. Something that can be extremely useful - or dangerous.

Anyway, this isn't a criticism of Obama. I just feel that it's pretty sad how the Obama-supporting community is rallying people together at TCU, but no one else. I at least expected something from the Hillary supporters - I spoke with her campaign group at the mall yesterday and it seems they're fairly well represented in Texas.

It's disappointing how one-sided TCU's political scene is. I expected a little more diversity - instead all I see is pro-Obama, anti-Hillary, and absolutely nothing regarding the Republican party. Still, I feel that the Obama mini-campaign running here will probably be effective. A group of students marching together to go vote is a lot more appealing than someone feeling like an outcast while going to cast their vote for Hillary. The Obama campaign is daunting - it's making those not supporting Obama feel highly underrepresented here, thus possibly discouraging the hesitant voter.

More power to them, I guess. I just hope everyone knows what they're doing.

Questionable TCU Political Agenda?

I feel that something on this campus has gained attention (as it should) and I also do not know how to perceive this “attention.” As many students, faculty, and staff know Chelsea Clinton came to campus today and spoke at the student Main. Most affiliated with TCU found this news out at interestingly enough 4:13PM the Sunday night prior to her Monday showing. Here is the email, put out by the Young Democrats on the TCU listserve:

To all TCU Students, Faculty, and Staff,

Chelsea Clinton will be on campus Monday morning (March 3, 2008) at 10:15 AM in the Student Center Memorial Lounge doing a Q&A session lasting approximately one hour. The event is free and open to TCU Students, Faculty, and Staff.

Thank you,
Celeste Greene
President - TCU Democrats

Wow. There are several things running through my mind in terms of analyzing this text. The first thing that pops into my head is: Why the late notice to all of TCU? Was this visit one that was not planned, because it seems this would be the only excuse for such tardiness. Chelsea Clinton is a figure of our generation, who has seen the ins and outs of a successful presidency and has been the cue of media attentions for years. I believe that this is a very big deal, one that was not accredited or given enough publicity or recognition by the university. The second thing that comes to mind that somewhat plays off the first one is this: Are the “Young Democrats” of TCU not much of Democrats at all? You would think that this party as a whole would be excited about this visit as I do believe it is an honor and a privilege, probably publicized nationally by several reputable news and television stations. The third thing is: Do the Young Democrats believe she will eventually be surrendering to Obama in the near future and this is why her backing was so half-baked? Does this say something about the Young Democrats and their loyalty to their candidates regardless if it is the “right” candidate or the “winning” candidate? There are many different questions and steps of analysis you could take, however it still stands that I am very surprised that a school such as TCU didn’t have their hands in this process better, as to have risen the hype and awareness of this important political visit. I almost want to come to the conclusion that TCU was not all that happy about her coming her with all these flaming Conservatives around that petition against Hillary everyday in class. I know that my professor gave us the option to go watch Chelsea speak, yet it was clearly an afterthought after everyone had already appeared in class at 10:00am, and when she said it was optional I could almost see the disproval in her eyes. Politics are sure interesting.

iReport takes blogging to the next level

This morning while browsing the internet, I stumbled upon this interesting little section of CNN's website. Apparently CNN has the bright idea of implementing this iReport, an area where news can be generated by absolutely anyone. These reports posted include pictures, videos, and user-created news reports, none of which are fact-checked or are required to come from any sort of credible source.

Now, I'm all for blogging - blogging is a realm where opinions can be shared and issues can be discussed. But blogs are NOT disguised as news, and those literate enough to understand the blogs usually know the difference between someone's opinion and credible fact. Sometimes. But this iReport thing could actually look like legitimate news to someone. Say someone searches Barack Obama. They might stumble upon this video of Obama blowing his nose. I searched Barack Obama and also recieved links to a bunch of pictures of paintings with political dialogue, Hilary vs. Obama cartoons and articles, and other opinion pieces. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. What bothers me is that it's labeled as "news." People are short on credible sources for news anyway. I feel like this just adds more to the mess of public discourse that is the news. Can't we just have blogs and news, without all this weird stuff in between?

Saying You're Sorry

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/26/mccain-apologizes-for-radio-hosts-obama-comments-at-rally/

A political situation occurred on Tuesday once again for John McCain as Radio talk show host Bill Cunnigham oversteps his boundaries at a McCain Rally.
Cunnigham’s comments seem to be directly against the Obama camp, as maybe no he or John McCain see Hillary out of the race already. Cunningham delivered his speech of one-sided ignorance by saying “Barack Hussein Obame” about three times over his whole speech. Cunnigham is obviously inferring to Sadam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader who only stirs up anxiousness and hate in the minds and hearts of American people. This was intentional rhetoric that was used in order to illicit a bad taste in the mouth of Americans over Barack Obama. He says: “Obama just came back from meeting Ahmadinejad; he’s got a meeting the next week with Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Then he’s going to saddle up next to Hezbollah; they’re going to have a little cookie-and-cream party. All’s going to be right with the world.” This is a completely inappropriate way of dealing with an opponent, and I believe if anything John McCain has lost even more credibility by having such an ignorant supporter on his trail. Although McCain apologizes, this still gives Americans a sour taste in their mouths. Instead of his famous supporters backing up and citing all of the wonderful things McCain has done, an approach they take instead is just to attack the other side, making their rhetoric look scared and threatened. On another note in this article, it is cited that McCain was in a situation where he did not repudiate a voter for calling Clinton a “bitch” until a few minutes later after he was done chuckling, managed to not apologize about this comment, he just said that he respected her. I think as this dialogic exchange of Candidates and supporters shows that regardless of if the words came out of the candidates or supporters mouth, it is the responsibility of the candidate to take complete credit for it, almost as if they had said it themselves.

Clinton Mocks Obama

Hillary has recently chosen to go negative to halt Obama's momentum, it may have the opposite effect on potential voters. at a While at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, she mocked Obama and his message of hope and change in a very theatrical, over-the-top manner.

See for yourself:





While her jabs at Obama were met with rousing applause from a live audience, internet onlookers have not shared the reaction. Comments on various websites that have posted the above video include things like "Hillary is flat out desperate..." "she is just looking mean spirited" "Hillary's campaign just proves how cynical we have gotten in America" and last but not least "what a b*tch."

In Hillary’s defense the media hasn’t been easy on her. It seems like everyone from the Today Show anchors to Saturday Night Live writers are taking pot shots at her.

Still it seems like Hillary could have picked something other than his support of hopes and dreams to parody and poke fun at. This only exaggerates her persona as a domineering and heartless being. To be honest, I had a very clear analogy in my head as I watched this clip. I couldn’t help but think of Maleficent from Walt Disney’s 1959 adaptation of Sleeping Beauty.

But not right now

The Baltimore Sun reports:

In New Orleans earlier, Clinton offered her regrets for any hard feelings stemming from husband Bill Clinton's comments comparing Obama to the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Yet, when asked about that, all the senator would say is: “I’ll have more to say about that some day, but not right now."

Does she really mean: "I'll have more to say about that when my advisors tell me what to say"?

Scientology Silliness

An online group known only as Anonymous has been hacking away at Scientology for a few weeks now. They even arranged protests outside Scientology churches.


The green masks and the word XENU partially visible on the far right poster are a reference to the figure in the Scientology religion who supposedly was a dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy," brought billions to Earth in an airplane-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, and killed them, leaving their souls to haunt people today and cause us spiritual harm.

From a rhetorical standpoint, I find it interesting the mere word XENU has become an argument. The word singlehandedly evokes laughter in many. "What? They believe in some alien named XENU? XENU???" Scientologists attempt to keep the Xenu story secret--I believe it became public through some documents entered into evidence in court--but protestors bring up the word as a way of ridiculing Scientology. Even one of the most prominent websites attacking Scientology, Operation Clambake, took xenu as its domain name ( www.xenu.net ).

Obama on Pakistan

Obama made an interesting statement last August:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Controversy followed. Is Obama too strong on terrorism, too weak, or like the fabled porridge, just right?

The statement itself struck me as almost tautological. (A tautology, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement where the predicate means the same as the subject; for instance, "a bachelor is an unmarried male.") You can interpret Obama's statement as: "If we have intelligence worthy of action, we will act." Well, no kidding! The key part, of course, is about acting regardless of Pakistani president Musharraf's position. But I still think Obama got himself into a trap with the tangle of words he used.

McCain vs. Obama - that is, Cindy McCain vs. Michelle Obama

Here's something you don't always see in a presidential race - the wives going at it! Well, sort of. Last Tuesday, Cindy McCain introduced her husband at a campaign event, saying, "I am proud of my country. I don't know about you, if you heard those words earlier - I am very proud of my country."

This is being viewed as a blatant response to a comment Michelle Obama made the day before, saying, "For the first time in my life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback... not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

What interests me more so than the comments themselves is the reaction that followed. Apparently this has become something of a "controversy," and both Cindy and Michelle have made statements to the effect of saying that they didn't mean what it sounded like they said.

On Monday, Obama's spokesperson covered Michelle's tracks, saying, "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn't be possible anywhere on Earth."

I see this is a very bad rhetorical strategy. First off, Michelle herself isn't commenting, making it seem like someone else realized this was a bad political move and scrambled to correct it for her. Second, the fact remains that she said she was proud of America "for the first time in her life." If you're going to say something like that, stick behind it at least, and don't have a spokesperson correct it - I think it makes Obama seem just a little catty, not to mention either incapable or unwilling to address her own mistakes.

McCain isn't much better - she showed her own claws when she responded to Obama's in he first place. In an interview, she denied this, saying, "I just wanted to make the statement that I  have and always will be proud of my country." At least she commented on the issue herself - still, its obvious that she was responding to Obama, and would not have said this had Obama not made her remark.

All in all I think this snippy little exchange is totally unnecessary and unrelated to the election at hand. The race is between the candidates, and snippy little comments from the wives aren't going to strengthen anybody's case - all they're going to do is make the wives in question look like a couple of high school girls. The men are taking low blows already - the wives could at least be civil about the whole thing. I think this did absolutely no good rhetorically. Neither McCain nor Obama cited a relevant social issue - save Obama's regurgitation of that whole "change" thing - and McCain's snapping back was completely unnecessary. I appreciate the support for their husbands, but come on, let's make women look reputable and educated, not catty and childish.

A Wise Choice for Romney

(So apparently my post didn't go through last week... sorry... here we go again)

I've been pondering Mitt Romney's withdrawal from the presidential race since his exit after disappointing Super Tuesday defeats. I thought Romney was a decent candidate - he was experienced, which for me counts for a lot, and supported true conservative values. I was extremely confused and disappointed when he resigned, or in my opinion, gave up, after stating that he would be persevering throughout the race. That sure didn't last long, did it?

After thinking about Romney's decision, however, I think his strategy was a wise one. Although he may not have thought either of the other Republican candidates ideal, they supported Republican values. Romney would rather see his party win than see himself win, and so by resigning, the votes that would have gone to him will now go to one of the other GOP candidates, possibly swaying the election against Obama or Clinton.

Honestly, I don't think the guy had a chance, anyway. It's a shame, but I think his religion had a lot to do with it. I'm familiar with the Mormon religion, and many Christians do not take kindly to it. Whether their views are valid is another debate entirely, but I think it's a bit sad that a man's religion - Christian religion - could actually lose an election for him. Now, the religion wasn't entirely to blame, but it did play a role.

Bloggers seem to be pretty happy with Romney's resignation. I've seen some pretty nasty things - people calling him a shell of a candidate or simply a slick, attractive exterior. I don't agree with this, but I do agree that Romney probably didn't have a chance. And with a good part of America feeling dissatisfied with the Republican party, Romney made the right choice in securing more votes for one of his Republican running mates, hopefully.

McDonalds McDonalds!

http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/archives.php

Too often in society we see others become persuaded by social influence, we become victims to it, and watch our friends and loved ones get sucked in. However, how far is too far when it comes to national food chains influencing our children from the age as early as three.

The song goes something like: Taco Bell and Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut with a chorus of McDonalds McDonalds! There are arm movements that serve as descriptions from each Kentucky Fried Chicken= flapping arms, Pizza Hut= one circle and McDonalds=a Big M with the arms.

This advertisement found on adbusters is a classic. I will have to preface this by saying, this is not a new technique formulated by fast food chains in an attempt to brainwash young minds. This is a very intentional dive into the parents consumerism now, and the children’s consumerism to come. I remember singing this song at preschool as a young girl, and apparently this is still a song that has been solid in being rehearsed for over 20 years.

It goes without saying, the United States is a society that is highly influenced by advisements and nothing from our childhood could really be that bad, that is why when I hear McDonalds or Burger King I do not attribute these words with a negative connotation. These are words I have heard in a positive light all of my life, Ronald McDonald was at my fourth birthday party, I used to have a Burger King Crown I would wear when I ate my chicken nuggets. It is a genius move for advertisers to instill these names and ideas in the minds of children, things learned at a young age stick, it is proven in the learning of new languages as an adult, and it is also true of life habits, it is also a fact that where you would like to go eat has something to do with remembering as a child loving the beef and cheese burrito at Taco Bell.

Health critics and Doctors can say what they will say. Sometimes, people do not choose to go to a restaurant or fast food chain because it tastes good, sometimes it is as simple as the place being familiar, always being there and always maintaining the same look or flavor. Our childhood memories have a lot to do with the way we react to anything; certain people, men or women, different languages, dogs, dances, sports, literally anything.

The Propaganda Remix Project

If You're Not a Terrorist... Then Stop Asking Questions! is described by amazon.com as "the hilarious follow-up to Micah Wright's hit debut, You Back The Attack! We'll Bomb Who We Want! Wright creates a stellar send-up of the Administration's War at Home, combining "remixed" full-color World War-era propaganda posters with critical political commentary to deliver a scabrous take on the State of the Union. Taking aim at corporate corruption, the Bush White House, Ashcroftian legislation, embedded reporters, the 2004 presidential elections and super-patriotism, this is a must for art collectors and rabble-rousers both."

His website has a veriety of "remixed" posters from the World War-era. The most recent posters attack the issues of privacy that have come to the attention of America with the implementation of the Patriot Act. With it the National Security Agency has secretly amassed call records of tens of millions of Americans obtained from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. It also gave way to the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order. Many Americans are torn by feelings of betrayl by their government while wanting to do what is "best for the country."

On Wright's website he has a section for "hate mail" in which he has a public discourse with readers on the internet who disagree with his position. This creates an interesting dialogue that at times seems like little more than a pissing contest. So often people are looking for something to bad mouth or fight against simply to have something to fight against. While personally I find Wright's posters slightly unsettling, I can certainly appreciate the sarcasm and dark humor behind them.

Appeals to Black Parishioners

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/10/bill-clinton-appeals-to-black-parishioners-to-pick-a-female-candidate/

There have been several news reports focusing on presidential candidates: fact. I have also tuned into several news reports of the former President Clinton speaking at rallies, debates, churches, schools, big cities and small towns on behalf of his other half, Hillary Rodham. As the Democratic campaign seems to be getting more intense between Hillary and Obama, I believe many Democrats are torn. However, a determining factor in this election that The Clinton’s appear to be cognizant of is the difference between black and white.
I never thought that in my lifetime the election would more or less come down to a woman and a black man. I think it is about time, change is the only constant and the United States needs it more than ever, in a time of confusion, conflict, and war. I do not claim to be politically savvy by any means, but the direction and change we have come to encounter is a negative one. I think a fresh vision from a fresh gender or color might cleanse out this system that has been tainted by personal agenda’s, or the “good ole boy system.”
I think it is safe to say President Clinton’s run in the office was one of great stride, one that was appreciated and commended by citizens, without touching on the personal side of it.
Just as Black citizens have suffered through their hardships, I think it proves a good case that women have and still do face their own set of hardships in a “man’s world.” This, I think will be one of the most persuasive reasons black citizens will vote for Hillary, as a woman she has faced her “male dominated world” of the “glass ceiling effect”, low respect from her male counterparts, etc.
Bill Clinton has been favorable among black citizens of the United States ever since his presidency. He was successful enough in his education endeavors and housing plans to where he proves to have credibility with several minority groups. He understands as this race comes closer and closer the black vote will be so important, this could make or break Hillary’s presidency.
I believe this is such a good rhetorical move on the former President Clinton’s part. He has created a situation for black voters creating urgency to elect his wife because of her fabulous initiatives of housing, education, and health care.
He does touch on the fact that this decision for the black community is a “God-given dilemma.” I think that Clinton is effective in his presentation to the black community especially going to their churches, where he can have an effect on the pathos of his audience. At the end I think it is even greater that he encourages this audience to think and pray about their choice, using God terms is always an effective form of persuasion.

War on "Terror" / Obama on Faith

Many construe the laws allowing warrantless wiretapping, sneak and peek searches, and the like as "temporary measures" to win the "War on Terror" -- hence the need to renew and renew the laws.

Regardless of whether the laws are appropriate, they can't be temporary measures to win a war on terror. Such a war is by definition unwinnable. How can you defeat "terror"? There's always going to be terror.

The phrase "War on Terror" reminds me of "The Book" from 1984. In the novel the protagonist Winston reads a secret book, "The Book." It details the Inner Party's administration's conviction that the war they wage must never be won in order for them to maintain control over society.

/

In 2006 Obama gave a keynote address addressing the role of faith in politics -- specifically, the role of his faith in making decisions as a government official. He said his faith underpins his morals, and morals necessarily underpin law; therefore, he considers his faith when making decisions. This appeals to (many) conservatives. At the same time, he says any morals underpinning laws need to suit everyone's values, from atheist to believer. In other words, it doesn't matter that he brings his faith to his position. That appeals to (many) progressives.

Clever way to appease both sides.

Hilary Lends Major $$ to Her Own Campaign

The New York Times reports that Hilary Clinton is considering funding her campaign from her own pocket - again. Apparently the democratic hopeful already shelled out a cool $5 mil to her campaign, and after the draining primary elections that have taken place recently, she's decided to fund her campaign further.

I may not be the most politically informed, but I wasn't entirely sure candidates could do this. I thought campaigns were funded solely by donors. Apparently not. Furthermore, I wasn't aware the the Clintons were multi-millionaires of such stature, although that doesn't really surprise me. Still, it makes me wonder where Clinton actually got the money. At her news conference this afternoon, Clinton stated "I loaned the campaign $5 million from my money. That's where I got the money..." So what's happening with the money from the donors? Are they expected to loan the money back to her? That seems a little underhanded.

Still, I'm not here to bash Hilary - I suppose if she's really got $5 million lying around she can do with it what she pleases. I find all of this interesting in light of the recent democratic obsession with this idea of "change." Change the country, change the war, change the dominant political party, if that's all it really means... They want change. But from what I see, racing to have the most expensive campaign isn't really helping America socially, or enacting any sort of change at all.

We're looking at an economic recession, yet politicians decide to throw $5 million into their own campaigns - and then consider more? I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric regarding change and not really seeing much to back it up. Obama has stirring speeches and the backing of America's youth, and Hilary consistently addresses the nation's issues and offers promises for change, but I'm just not seeing a lot of in it action. Perhaps I would be more swayed if I saw such immense sums of money going somewhere more useful than Hilary's campaign - which should already be funded.

As a political moderate, I'd like hear something come out of the Democrats' mouths besides "Change, change, change." Like I said, I may not be the most informed, but the fact that I've only heard the same argument has to mean something. Yes, this is America, yes, we like change. But if I'm going to cast my vote on the hope of change, I want to see some evidence of it first. It's easy to say you're going to do something - the actual doing is a whole different matter entirely.

Mayor Newsom creates a rhetorical situation

It is always interesting the night before “Super Tuesday” that people of power, those that have a voice in society and can mandate change, put themselves in the media spotlight in order to “take sides.” Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco stands as the rhetor in this situation, creating and translating a text that he claims occurred between him and Obama, generating a situation that elicits a general response from the American public (namely the voters), as well as a negative response from the gay and lesbian community. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

This whole controversy started as members of the gay community have been supporting Obama for years, at fund raisers and such, to then be “shunned”, coincidently refusing to take pictures with the gay Mayor Newsom after an event the gay supporters of San Francisco had worked very hard on. Not once, but twice.

There is an argument provided by the former Senator of San Francisco Willie Brown stating Obama told him “He would really appreciate if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor, with mayor Gavin.”

There is such a sense of resentment in this article, a feeling that Obama not only deserted them, but shunned them as a part of society that was no profitable to him, therefore a seemingly worthless effort.

It is also very suspicious on the part of the Mayor of San Francisco to come out with this discontentment of Obama the day leading into Super Tuesday, a day in which most voters understand to be ground breaking in politics as far as the Republican and Democratic nominees are concerned.
Mayor Gavin Newsom is acting towards the support of a gay audience, trying to influence their vote of Obama, making him sound like a fake and one whom is unsupportive of the entire gay community. The argument here is that Obama does not support gay rights, and what the public sees of any positive gay stance is all fake. Mayor Newsom states "I believe in his leadership qualities, and I look forward to voting for him," "In eight years."

The supporting reasons are held the texts exchanged back and forth from Obama and Gavin, as well as from the former Mayor of San Francisco, Mr. Willie Brown.

There is a clear strategy from the Hillary supporters on cable and satellite t.v. as well as the gay community that has sided with her. Mayor Newsom has even intentionally changed his vote to Hillary, shortly after this dialogue occurred. This snub looks to be the whole reason why Mayor Newsom has flipped to the Hillary side, and through Newsom’s discourse and rhetoric, it is clear that old wounds take time to heal. I do not believe Newsom has taken allegiance with Hillary Clinton as a “case of repayment of political favors.” This is a typical case of someone still holding pent-up resentment for a candidate’s personal “snub.” If the gay community sees this as well, he may not be as effective as he was trying to be. Who is to judge if this comment was personal or not, as is stated within the story, “Obama takes pictures with gay people all of the time.”

Hillary gets Emotional

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/04/sot.clinton.personal.cnn?iref=videosearch


Hillary Clinton visited Yale University Monday, and experienced a moment quite similar to her very popular visit in the New Hampshire Primary. She became emotional and became teary eyed again, showing her human side, a side that is much debated of the media and every political figure in this race. Clinton was introduced by a lawyer that worked with her back in her college days at Yale.

It must be really hard for a woman in the presidential candidacy with all of these men everywhere. Hillary has kept her composure modestly. She is debating and defending herself and her beliefs day in and day out. This is the first time a woman has come into her skin and really given America and her competition a run for their money.

We see this video and hear Penn Rhodeen, her mentor says "Here is the abiding truth we know — you have always been a champion for children. Welcome home, dear friend. We are so proud of you."

Clinton’s eyes reflected red and became watery as she said "Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path." Hillary Clinton has had the hardest time in the candidacy as far as I am concerned. If America is questioning her candidacy I would wonder why, because it could not be her resilience, courage, strength, or knowledge. After finally hearing praise for her efforts and works, she showed her human “womanly” self, I think this is important to see; it shows she is real, feels real things and understands them.

After all of the criticism Hillary has been undergoing for years, even while Mr. Clinton was in office, do you blame her?

From President Bush’s current approval rating, I believe it is safe to say the country wants something different. He hardly gets emotional, usually just has a smirk and a deep look in the eyes. However the media chooses to frame this, which will be in mostly negative ways, I believe through the expression of her emotions, Hillary is offering a discontent America something very different for a president in 2009.

Misshapen Union 2008

While President Bush’s address to the nation on January 28 was informative and inspiring a recent google search has left me a little skeptical of our nations condition. In hoping to find the transcript for the 2008 State of the Union Address the first site that came up was “The State of the Union Address Drinking Game 2008.” Aside from the fact that the official website for the State of the Union Address was third on the list, I find it interesting how many of my classmates admitted to not even being aware that it had taken place. For those of you who fall into this category you can read the transcript here.

Nevertheless the rhetorical practices were at work the night of the 28th. It was an uplifting speech that spent time justifying the war in Iraq while putting a positive spin on the future of our economy as well as criticizing the congress for things the public loathes like tax hikes and loading up bills that will help Americans. Framing arguments for the war by using terminology like war on terror and describing Iraqis as jubilant and courageous due no doubt to our presence there.

In reading popular blogs I found that most people were unimpressed by President Bush’s Address while simultaneously agreeing that the state of our nation is relatively strong. While it is impossible to ignore the fact that someday the USA will no longer be the super-nation of the world it seems hard to see it on the horizon. College students often have a reputation for making intellectual complaints about politicians and the state of our nation while doing nothing to help enact change. My hope is that young people will seriously research the candidates for the upcoming election and make informed decisions when going to the polls.

The Persuaders

The PBS Documentary "The Persuaders" revealed the inner workings of the advertising business, bringing to light a very strange and illogical world. This documentary made me realize the absurdity of America's consumer culture. We live in a world where we are defined by the products we buy. Associations regarding the status and worth of individuals are made by observing the commodities said individuals consume. For this, I blame the advertising industry and their ridiculous obsession with creating a "deep connection" between consumers and the products these advertisers are trying to sell. It is an illogical connection that shouldn't hold true, but it does.

I felt a tiny pang of guilt when I saw the motley crew of Apple customers sitting around the table discussing their affinity towards their product. I could completely see myself there, praising this ridiculous corporation that appeals to me only because they've marketed their computers and ipods and other technologies for the hip, creative crowd - much more me than those ponderous old PC's. I am an example of marketing success, feeling tied to a certain brand for no reason other than good advertising. Now, I won't be giving up my Mac anytime soon, but it got me thinking.

How often does this person-to-brand bond thing actually take place? I used to own a Volkswagen Beetle, before the stupid thing broke down and got turned into scrap metal. I didn't buy this car because of the horsepower or the fuel efficiency or any of that - I bought it for the look, to be the happy little girl driving the happy little car. Apparently I wasn't alone. They had entire Beetle conventions, where people who drove these bugs converged like Trekkies to talk about their cars. (For the record, I never went to one - I saw an internet article and happened to look at it out of sheer curiosity, promise.) The people who went to these conventions weren't brought together through any intellectual connection. Friendships forged there were made of nothing of substance. All that brought these consumers together was the fact that they had fallen for the same marketing scheme. Suckers, all. And none of us are any better.

The idea of the "reptilian brain" seems a little far fetched. I'd like to think that humans have advanced past the point of needing to have the biggest cave or the nicest rock to feel powerful (I'm trying to allude to cavemen here, bear with me), but our cave and rock have become our Hummer and Louis Vuitton. Everyone who can have the best, wants it, because everyone wants to be in the position of power. Advertisers have outsmarted all of us, tapping into our most basic nature, reducing us down to animals. The sad part is, these tactics worked - they've outsmarted all of us, and in doing so, have reduced us down to being nothing more than labels.

In the end of "The Producers," it was said that "noise" was no longer an issue - this abundance of advertising simply blends with everything else in our life, becoming an innate part of it. This film had made me wonder where we would be if advertisers hadn't so successfully woven commodities into our very definitions of self worth. What would be bond over? What food or music or cars or games would we talk about when meeting new people? There would be nothing. We would lose the very means by which we define ourselves and others. America embraces a consumer culture in every sense. We are nothing if not the products that we buy.

The Persuaders

The PBS documentary The Persuaders criticized advertisers for deceptive and destructive practices. For example, one of its experts argued "once a culture becomes entirely advertising-friendly, it ceases to be a culture at all."

Well, I find consumerism and commercials as obnoxious as the next person -- probably more; I don't watch TV -- but this expert's quote seems more catchy than helpful. I suppose once a culture becomes entirely friendly to anything, it loses some culture since dissenting voices disappear. But that's obvious enough; so, what the expert really seems to be saying is something like: "The more friendly to advertising a culture becomes, the less of a culture it is."

That doesn't seem true to me. Isn't advertising just part of particular cultures? I hate to assume I know what the expert "really" means, but taking the entire documentary as context, it seems what the guy really wanted to get across was that advertising, at least enough of it, is bad.

I think advertising's "bad," too. I wish advertisers would spend more time articulating why their particular product is better than others instead of trying to make the consumer feel a spiritual bond with their product. I wish advertising wasn't everywhere (the documentary mentioned ads placed inside golf holes) so I could look at more interesting things and not feel bombarded by other people's messages. But I don't think -- as the documentary seemed to want me to -- that advertising sinks hooks into my subconscious that it uses to pull me to inevitably do certain things. I'm sure advertising influences me to some degree, and I definitely think the emphasis on consumption in the United States takes our attention away from more important things, but why place all the blame on the advertisers? They wouldn't have the means to advertise if it weren't for the people buying their products.

State of the Union 2008

The 2008 State of the Union Address was especially interesting to me while being enrolled in such classes as Rhetoric, Communication and Change, as well as Propaganda Analysis. This is President Bush’s last State of the Union Address in his presidency. President Bush’s approval ratings are at all all-time low of 32% as recorded by the Washington Post. “The War on Terror” is still in full effect, the majority of the United States is completely unsatisfied with the healthcare system, and gas prices are off the charts, I filled my tank up for 2.80 a gallon today. For all of the reasons above and more, this State of the Union Address really interested me. I will look at the original text, the State of the Union Address via www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008.
President Bush says “We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens.” This is a very loaded sentence using words such as “most reliable” “collective” “and wisdom”. This is the perfect example of a glittering generality in using such virtuous words to describe United States citizens.
President Bush knows that the hot topic among Americans is Healthcare. Not only does he keep this subject brief, but later in his speech, completely contradicts any idea hope to go forward in a positive, new direction. He says he wants to give patients and doctors more information and better options, yet later in the speech none of that holds a prayer. He mentions extending the frontiers in experimental medicine “without the destruction of human life” but never mentions how Americans are being destroyed everyday because they cannot pay the hefty costs to live through insurance companies and prescriptions. “So we’re expanding funding for this type of ethical medical research,” he says. He tries to make light of the fact that these advances are what sets America apart without getting to the issue of Americans. Through expanding funding for stem cell research, the “wisdom of ordinary citizens” is not being heard, and definitely not acknowledged.

"The time has come," the Walrus said...

"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax, Of cabbages and kings, And why the sea is boiling hot, And whether pigs have wings."

Welcome to our blog. More to come soon...