The United States of Caring

For this blog i was asked whether the current united states falls under the united states of Huck or tom. To this i really couldn't answer because the citizens of america follow two entirely different extremes.. The american government And the wealthy people of america follows the united states of tom while the lower to middle class and the minorities follow the untied states of Huck. 

In the united states many of the upper class and government when it comes to fragile situations including race and lgbt community they model what George Saunders describe as the united states of tom. “The United States of Tom looks at misery and says: Hey, I didn’t do it. it looks at inequity and says: All my life I have busted my butt to get where I am, so don’t come crying to me….Tom denies. ” when it comes to the racism in america many upper class whites and the gov. Act like racism is a thing that only happened in the pass and does not happen now in america. When they see the learning gap and unemployment rates among the black community they treat like a small bump that you can easily get over. Many whites follow the model that just because they “made it” in the world it would be easy for a minority to do the same. “Whereas Tom knows, Huck wonders. Whereas Huck hopes, Tom presumes.” When “dealing” with the LGBT community the government and many upper class people presumes being LGBT as something that you can choose. And instead of focusing on their struggles and pain, they focus mainly on their own morals and biases. 

The middle and lower middle class, and minorities of america follows the united states of Huck model. “Huck likes people, fair play, spreading the truck around. Whereas Tom knows, Huck wonders. Whereas Huck hopes, Tom presumes. Whereas Huck cares,” many minorities and LGBT community tries and care for everyone in their community. They have centers and try and to care for everyone in their community,

Go Mean or Go Green?

This poster for Jill Stein is very different than traditional posters for democratic or republican candidates. The colors and images used in this poster attract and audience that maybe is undecided or against the larger party candidates. Green is traditionally associated as good, healthy, and progressive. "Green means go" is hardwired into our culture, the poster uses this subconscious bias for the color green in it's favor. The vast majority of political propaganda is red or blue. Green is against the status quo for candidates posters. Standing out against the message tells the audience what kind of candidate Jill Stein is. This poster has a pathos rhetorical argument. Jill is not like the the harsh red and blue candidates, she is a healthy alternative. The colors also reflect the main priorities Jill has and what she values. Jill is a green party candidate, she values the ecosystem and the health of our planet. 

Jill Stein does not fall into the normal cookie-cutter image for a candidate. The popular and well known candidates in the lime light have stereotypical ideologies and perspectives on pressing issues. The outline of the eagle with the green American flag filling it in argues that Jill is beyond other candidates. Not red or blue, the eagle is not tethered to parties or constructs that have been detrimental to the Unites States in the past. The eagle is the national icon of freedom here in America. While elephants and donkeys can be stubborn. The eagle however, that represents Jill, is wise and patriotic. The image of the eagle offers a pathos appeal. Viewers of this poster are drawn to the eagle. The American people see the eagle as a majestic and powerful creature. A candidate represented by an image of an eagle is looking out for the American people and has no time for political party bureaucracy and time wasting. Viewers think that this candidate is all American, has American interests, and wants to fight for and represent the American people.  

Immigration

Immigration is a major issue in the United States. Some presidential candidates feel that immigrants should be deported, banned, and blocked from coming to the United States. Other candidates have different approaches to the situation. There are many ways that the US immigration policy can approach this situation.

Although immigration is a huge problem to these candidates, the methods in decreasing immigration should not be as dramatic. Immigrants that are already in the United States should not be the main focus right now. The US immigration policy should focus on keeping more immigrants from coming to the United States. Security at the border should be increased to ensure that no immigrants will pass through illegally. For undocumented immigrants, they should be given a year to become citizens of the United States and prove citizenship.

All Muslims should not be discriminated against. Every Muslim does not have the intentions of harming the US and its citizens. Unless suspicious activity is suspected, Muslims should be left alone. They should be treated as equal as every other American citizen. The US immigration policy should include that all Muslims must be documented in order to stay or come to the United States. 

Campaign 2016: One Big Action Movie

Often times, ads on TV, especially political ads, can be boring and bothersome. However, the ads that are actually interesting capture a viewer’s attention one way or another. Politicians constantly use T.V. ads to inform voters about their policies or even bash their opponents. In January, Ted Cruz released a very attention grabbing T.V. ad entitled “Invasion.” Cruz’s ad explains his stance on immigration. Compared to other political ads, Cruz’s really stands out in its presentation. Cruz uses a variety of film techniques similar to an action movie, such as slow motion and sound contrast, to emphasize his argument and captivate audiences.

The first 45 seconds of his 1-minute ad shows a variety of people running across what is supposed to be the Rio Grande River. In this very dramatic and action movie like scene, all of the people running across the river are wearing suits and other professional business clothing. The constant use of slow motion video clips adds to the excitement and suspense. The slow motion in the ad gives it an extra feeling that can only be described as an action movie. The use of slow motion gets the viewer revved up and excited. As the viewer watches this wonderful display of athleticism by the businessmen and women, dramatic, action movie style music plays in the background. The constant crescendos and decrescendos add to the action of the clips and highlights when the ad reaches its climax. The introduction takes a very slow approach and the music slowly increases speed as it brings the view to the apex of the ad. The music begins to die down around 45 seconds where it shows a clip of Ted Cruz from one of the GOP debates. He says, “If I am elected president, we will triple the border patrol, we will build a wall that works and we will secure the border.” As he says this, the extra-diegetic music dies down and fades away. The fading music causes the viewer to listen very attentively to his final argument at the end. The action movie style presentation and sound effects help strengthen Ted Cruz’s argument by captivating viewers and getting them to pay attention to what he is saying.

Hillary Talks But Never Says Anything

Hillary Clinton is well-known for her ability to circumvent giving direct answers. She talks a lot, but never really says anything substantial in her responses during the Democratic debates. A telling example of her using a logical fallacy to avert the answer to a tough question occurred during the debate on October 13th on CNN when Anderson Cooper asked, "You are going to be testifying before Congress next week about your e-mails. For the last eight months, you haven't been able to put this issue behind you. You dismissed it; you joked about it; you called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more challenging crises as president?" This issue is raised time and time again, and seems detrimental to her campaign. Many voters have misgivings about her candidacy solely because of this issue that she consistently avoids or lies about.

Her response was, instead of addressing her handling of the situation, "Let's just take a minute here and point out that this committee is basically an arm of the Republican National Committee. It is a partisan vehicle, as admitted by the House Republican majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, to drive down my poll numbers. Big surprise. And that's what they have attempted to do." This reply is a glaring example of an ad hominem logical fallacy; she evaded the charges by attacking a group instead of the position they are holding. Yes, the Republicans are, for political purposes, publicizing this crisis more than necessary, but that does not make their claims inherently false. She never addresses the issue directly, instead she implies that because the crisis is part of a Republican agenda, the case against her must be unsound.

This argument works well for Clinton because, although it is a logical fallacy, her argument is valid. It speaks to the polarized politics of the 21st century, and McCarthy himself admitted, “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.” Although McCarthy clearly thought his actions were more noble than Clinton's perception of the committee, her statement during the debate cannot be disputed. However, Clinton used the partisan argument for the wrong question; she did not need to attack McCarthy's intentions in order to explain to the public how, after all of the scandals of the Clinton family, she can still be a capable, respectable leader.

Gun Violence: Can It Be Stopped?

Gun violence is a very prevalent threat in today's societies. Mass shootings are occurring at an alarmingly high rate, and it's sparking very heated debates on what to do with the weapons themselves. Some will say that getting rid of civilians' access to guns is the only way to go, while those on the other end of the spectrum say that gun laws should be more lenient. Both of these types of people, however, often overlook or avoid looking at a piece of information that could change the course of these types of debates and provide a solution-- that gun violence CAN'T be stopped.
I believe that, as long as people with the intent to commit these horrendous crimes exist, there isn't a way to stop them. However, I do believe that there is a way to lessen the toll that these types of tragedies have on the U.S. By increasing the restrictions on military-grade weapons, such as rifles, while allowing more concealed carry licenses to be issued, I believe that we can decrease the amount of casualties that occur during shootings. An argument that some will use to argue for this is that if someone is thinking of going into a theatre and shooting as many people as possible, they'll consider that people in that theatre will be carrying some sort of firearm. In some cases, this could be true. However, research shows that most people who commit these crimes have mental illnesses that affect their ability to reason. This means that the majority of times that someone wanted to shoot up a theatre, they wouldn't have the capability to consider that people inside are carrying weapons. This, sadly, means that there is no surefire way to completely stop these types of crimes-- we can only lessen the casualties and detrimental impacts that they cause.

The odd ones out.

Here in America, the second amendment of the Constitution states that we as citizens have a right to bear arms. Now, as Family Guy has once joked, this does not mean that we have a right to have a pair of bear's arms on display within our homes. What it does mean is that we have a right to have a firearm within our possession, presumably for self-defense. Now a large debate within our country (and a hot topic for presidential debates) is what we are to do about our gun laws, as there are some people who decide to use this right for more than self defense. There are people who use it to take over government buildings (Bundy Militia in Oregon), and plenty of mass shootings that take place in the US, which, as you can imagine, is not the intent of the second amendment. Now, the question is what are we going to do about it?

In all honesty, America's officials need to crack down on gun laws and background checks immediately. Guns are useful for a lot of things for a lot of people, hunting, self defense, etc., and they should definitely continue to be used for those things, but for those things only. America needs to put in place more in-depth background checks onto whoever is looking to buy a gun, in order to assure that whoever is buying it is mentally and criminally sound. This is exactly what Australia does, and they haven't gotten a mass shooting since 1996, because their minister completely cracked down on who could buy and sell guns.Why America hasn't taken the hint yet? I'm not entirely sure.

Master of Rhetoric

Hillary Clinton is perhaps the best candidate for analyzing rhetorical strategies. Her long resume has helped her to master ethos; she always ameliorates any accusation of bad politics. In the Democratic debate on January 17th, Clinton showed these political skills off in front of her opponents. Clinton used Martin Luther King’s legacy to her advantage, appealed to pathos, and effectively attacked the reliability of her biggest adversary all within the first fifteen minutes of the debate.

As the candidate with the largest voting base of black and Hispanic voters, she used the continuation of Martin Luther King’s campaign for justice as a reason for her presidency. Clinton asserted that, “[King’s] moral clarity, that message he conveyed that evening really stayed with me and helped to set me on a path of service. I also remember that he spent the last day of his life in Memphis, fighting for dignity and higher pay for working people. And that is our fight still.” All of the candidates mentioned Martin Luther King in their opening remarks during the debate, but Clinton made an implicit statement about continuing King’s fight for equality in the United States. This resonating argument simultaneously boosted her ethos and appealed to pathos; she is saying that she is the only president that can and will continue the fight for working people.

Additionally, Clinton discredited her opponent during the discussion of gun control. She stated, “I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders’ own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times.” Subsequently, she listed specific examples of the event which provided substance for her claim. This rhetorical strategy bolsters her own image by creating an appearance of a more reliable, credible candidate. Later in her response to the gun control issue, she specifically appealed to pathos using a local example of armed violence. The Charleston shooting served as a way to connect with the sentiments of the crowd and show that she, personally, will try to prevent these shootings in the future.