Becky and David MM presentations

The presentations on Tuesday were very interesting. They were extremely different from each other, but both were effective and well done. Great jobs guys!

To start off, I want to address the rhetoric surrounding mobile homes. I think that was an excellent topic, because the idea is just something I never would have thought about before. Our society does stereotype people who live in mobile homes. Movies, 8 Mile and Texas Chainsaw Massacre come to mind when I think of the movie industry encouraging the stereotype. In 8 Mile, the mobile home is the home of Rabbit’s mom who is struggling to support her daughter. The home screams destitution and poverty. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I hope this is right-haven’t seen it in a long time), but the mobile homes are pictured to make the horror film even scarier. These homes are presented as less than desirable places to live.

I LOVED the way the pictures of the mobile homes taken from the plane contributed to the logos of the speech. This was an extremely creative and effective way to present the facts of how mobile homes are set up. Ethos was present from beginning to end, because of the fact that Becky is architecture major. She knows how to build solid quality homes (and proves it with the picture of her model). She pushes that mobile homes can be just as good, and we believe her because she knows much more about architecture than we do. I think she used pathos well when she showed examples of different responses from people who were hurt by the stereotype put on people who live in these types of homes. It made the audience feel sorry for those who were the butt end of all the Foxworthy jokes. I don’t know much about the history of mobile homes, but seeing as there seems to be a need for a whole attitude makeover for our country about this topic, I believe the kairos was appropriate and the presentation was presented at an appropriate time. While I’m not sure there is a strong time of exigence present concerning the mobile homes, at least for many of our population who hadn’t given them a second thought, the presentation does tell us we need to be aware that a problem is and has been in existence for many. I think the speech was mainly deliberative because she is telling us where we need to go, what we need to do, how to adjust our attitudes, in order to improve our country.

As for Bush…. Controversial subject here, so kudos to David for taking it on! And to top it off, I think he did it with virtually no bias. The reason I say this, is because I cannot tell if he is for or against President Bush. (I think he likes him from conversations we’ve had before, but the speech did not reveal this.) Because bias was eliminated, he was able to effectively analyze Bush’s rhetoric and present his findings accurately. He went step by step, telling us exactly where the logos, ethos, and pathos were present in his speeches. Being basically ignorant of what is going on around us (I KNOW THAT IS SO BAD, BUT AT LEAST THIS CLASS HAS MADE ME WELL AWARE THAT I NEED TO WATCH MORE OF THE NEWS), I found it interesting to note how Bush has changed as a speaker over the years. David says his Bushisms have become fewer, meaning his quality of speaking is becoming clearer and more sophisticated. Establishing ethos seems to be very important to Bush considering he tries to maintain his down to earth, I’m-just-an-ordinary-guy attitude. Looking at the results of the election, establishing ethos with your audience gets you the votes! Bush could definitely work on his use of pathos, in my opinion. But I also think that if he did become a lot more emotional, people might see his strength and credibility as diminishing. Telos is always important in a speech, and I think it’s obvious that Bush always has a goal in mind when speaking. (After all he does have writers to make his point clear and effective.) I think David did a good job covering all the technicalities in rhetoric. I definitely learned how Bush, as a speaker, has evolved over the years.

Becky and David MM presentations

The presentations on Tuesday were very interesting. They were extremely different from each other, but both were effective and well done. Great jobs guys!

To start off, I want to address the rhetoric surrounding mobile homes. I think that was an excellent topic, because the idea is just something I never would have thought about before. Our society does stereotype people who live in mobile homes. Movies, 8 Mile and Texas Chainsaw Massacre come to mind when I think of the movie industry encouraging the stereotype. In 8 Mile, the mobile home is the home of Rabbit’s mom who is struggling to support her daughter. The home screams destitution and poverty. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I hope this is right-haven’t seen it in a long time), but the mobile homes are pictured to make the horror film even scarier. These homes are presented as less than desirable places to live.

I LOVED the way the pictures of the mobile homes taken from the plane contributed to the logos of the speech. This was an extremely creative and effective way to present the facts of how mobile homes are set up. Ethos was present from beginning to end, because of the fact that Becky is architecture major. She knows how to build solid quality homes (and proves it with the picture of her model). She pushes that mobile homes can be just as good, and we believe her because she knows much more about architecture than we do. I think she used pathos well when she showed examples of different responses from people who were hurt by the stereotype put on people who live in these types of homes. It made the audience feel sorry for those who were the butt end of all the Foxworthy jokes. I don’t know much about the history of mobile homes, but seeing as there seems to be a need for a whole attitude makeover for our country about this topic, I believe the kairos was appropriate and the presentation was presented at an appropriate time. While I’m not sure there is a strong time of exigence present concerning the mobile homes, at least for many of our population who hadn’t given them a second thought, the presentation does tell us we need to be aware that a problem is and has been in existence for many. I think the speech was mainly deliberative because she is telling us where we need to go, what we need to do, how to adjust our attitudes, in order to improve our country.

As for Bush…. Controversial subject here, so kudos to David for taking it on! And to top it off, I think he did it with virtually no bias. The reason I say this, is because I cannot tell if he is for or against President Bush. (I think he likes him from conversations we’ve had before, but the speech did not reveal this.) Because bias was eliminated, he was able to effectively analyze Bush’s rhetoric and present his findings accurately. He went step by step, telling us exactly where the logos, ethos, and pathos were present in his speeches. Being basically ignorant of what is going on around us (I KNOW THAT IS SO BAD, BUT AT LEAST THIS CLASS HAS MADE ME WELL AWARE THAT I NEED TO WATCH MORE OF THE NEWS), I found it interesting to note how Bush has changed as a speaker over the years. David says his Bushisms have become fewer, meaning his quality of speaking is becoming clearer and more sophisticated. Establishing ethos seems to be very important to Bush considering he tries to maintain his down to earth, I’m-just-an-ordinary-guy attitude. Looking at the results of the election, establishing ethos with your audience gets you the votes! Bush could definitely work on his use of pathos, in my opinion. But I also think that if he did become a lot more emotional, people might see his strength and credibility as diminishing. Telos is always important in a speech, and I think it’s obvious that Bush always has a goal in mind when speaking. (After all he does have writers to make his point clear and effective.) I think David did a good job covering all the technicalities in rhetoric. I definitely learned how Bush, as a speaker, has evolved over the years.

Becky and David MM presentations

The presentations on Tuesday were very interesting. They were extremely different from each other, but both were effective and well done. Great jobs guys!

To start off, I want to address the rhetoric surrounding mobile homes. I think that was an excellent topic, because the idea is just something I never would have thought about before. Our society does stereotype people who live in mobile homes. Movies, 8 Mile and Texas Chainsaw Massacre come to mind when I think of the movie industry encouraging the stereotype. In 8 Mile, the mobile home is the home of Rabbit’s mom who is struggling to support her daughter. The home screams destitution and poverty. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I hope this is right-haven’t seen it in a long time), but the mobile homes are pictured to make the horror film even scarier. These homes are presented as less than desirable places to live.

I LOVED the way the pictures of the mobile homes taken from the plane contributed to the logos of the speech. This was an extremely creative and effective way to present the facts of how mobile homes are set up. Ethos was present from beginning to end, because of the fact that Becky is architecture major. She knows how to build solid quality homes (and proves it with the picture of her model). She pushes that mobile homes can be just as good, and we believe her because she knows much more about architecture than we do. I think she used pathos well when she showed examples of different responses from people who were hurt by the stereotype put on people who live in these types of homes. It made the audience feel sorry for those who were the butt end of all the Foxworthy jokes. I don’t know much about the history of mobile homes, but seeing as there seems to be a need for a whole attitude makeover for our country about this topic, I believe the kairos was appropriate and the presentation was presented at an appropriate time. While I’m not sure there is a strong time of exigence present concerning the mobile homes, at least for many of our population who hadn’t given them a second thought, the presentation does tell us we need to be aware that a problem is and has been in existence for many. I think the speech was mainly deliberative because she is telling us where we need to go, what we need to do, how to adjust our attitudes, in order to improve our country.

As for Bush…. Controversial subject here, so kudos to David for taking it on! And to top it off, I think he did it with virtually no bias. The reason I say this, is because I cannot tell if he is for or against President Bush. (I think he likes him from conversations we’ve had before, but the speech did not reveal this.) Because bias was eliminated, he was able to effectively analyze Bush’s rhetoric and present his findings accurately. He went step by step, telling us exactly where the logos, ethos, and pathos were present in his speeches. Being basically ignorant of what is going on around us (I KNOW THAT IS SO BAD, BUT AT LEAST THIS CLASS HAS MADE ME WELL AWARE THAT I NEED TO WATCH MORE OF THE NEWS), I found it interesting to note how Bush has changed as a speaker over the years. David says his Bushisms have become fewer, meaning his quality of speaking is becoming clearer and more sophisticated. Establishing ethos seems to be very important to Bush considering he tries to maintain his down to earth, I’m-just-an-ordinary-guy attitude. Looking at the results of the election, establishing ethos with your audience gets you the votes! Bush could definitely work on his use of pathos, in my opinion. But I also think that if he did become a lot more emotional, people might see his strength and credibility as diminishing. Telos is always important in a speech, and I think it’s obvious that Bush always has a goal in mind when speaking. (After all he does have writers to make his point clear and effective.) I think David did a good job covering all the technicalities in rhetoric. I definitely learned how Bush, as a speaker, has evolved over the years.

Mobile Homes and Bushisms

Before attending Rebekah's presentation, I was unaware that South Carolina has the largest number of mobile homes per capita (her study certainly had an epideictic effect on me). Reflecting on this startling statistic, I believe that my naivety is due in part to having lived my entire life to this point in the South and assuming that mobile homes were as prevalent in every member of the United States. Rebekah did an excellent job establishing her ethos with her objective research (she presented both sides of the debate-those for and those against mobile homes, those embracing and those rejecting the stereotype), personal investigation (pictures taken by herself), personal interest, and architecture background although she has never actually inhabited this type of housing. Her pathos and audience appeal were successful since all of those listening, if not from South Carolina, were somehow bound to the state because of attending Clemson University. Logos was achieved through the refusal to simply denounce the stereotypes and rather to contemplate opportunities for reform that could make the stereotype a positive one. In this way too I believe Rebekah was deliberative and her telos was clear.

David surprised me with the topic of his presentation. I was expecting something a bit different from the traditional analysis we have been performing all semester, or at least a more exciting approach. However, he correctly and consistently followed the steps of analysis and applied the course content. It might have been a good idea to limit the number of speeches analyzed, although it they somehow tied in with the overall telos (though what that was I am unsure) I am sure it is fine. Ethos...this is tough. I suppose most of David's ethos comes from the fact that he is taking the course and is a citizen. He also did a good job of qualifying many of the judgments he made. The presentation contained pathos since it addressed an audience who voted and is currently under the effects of the man who is our president. David also used humor. I do not believe that the presentation was very epideictic since the events of the presidency and the praise and criticisms of the president are all available and continuously publicized and scrutinized. Along with the telos, I believe the logos of the presentation was lost somewhere.

Response to Rebekah and David

Today was the beginning of the Multimedia Presentations for this portion of the semester. I thought that it was really brave for these folks who decided to test the waters and go first. It seems like the first presentations are the hardest because you don't know what to expect or what you are directly supposed to do until after someone goes... so thanks to Rebekah and David for taking one for the team!

Response to Rebekah: I knew that South Carolina has a, shall we say an infatuation, with the mobile home. I am from Rock Hill about 3 hours from here and we are mobile home country. My roommate's sister attends Auburn and she said that students do not live in apartments like they do here in Clemson, rather they rent trailers. In terms of multimedia quality, the pictures we amazing! It shows a lot of effort (especially with your bussy schedule) to take the time to get those shots. It was very interesting to see how our campus can be on the frontline of the mobile home frontier. I also enjoyed looking at the website that you brought up at the beginning. I know that people who live in mobile homes take the brunt of a lot of cruel and mean jokes. I would have liked to see maybe a commerical or a television clip about mobile or modual homes or something. I did like your "model" on the pictureboard, and I think that it was great for you to be able to combine some of your designs and work from the studio into our classroom!

Response to David: I liked the idea of looking at the Bushisms. Our President has a very special language ALL his own that people have a hard time understanding... that could be because he likes to make up words like "nu-kler." I liked how you used some quotes from the speeches, but it was hard to pay attention to the presentation because you were jumping from speech to speech while the audience had no idea what was going on or what speech you were on. I would have liked to seen a copy or transcript of the speeches so I could have read along with you. Even a video clip of the speeches would have been nice to be able to frame up the information and so that we could have a visual to relate to. For me, it was hard to pay attention to the presentation, but the information in the presentation was informative and interesting. I especially liked some of the magazine covers you showed and the picture of all the people referring to Bush's anatomy!

My So-Called Taiwanese girlfriend (sources)

Figured I'd give you some links to get the background for all that stuff I was just talking about....

The new law: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4534691
Europe and Embargo: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4533516
The protests yesterday: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4562435

that's all for now.....

Robert

Rhetoric and my Taiwanese girlfriend....

Okay, so how's that for a title? I knew this was going to be long, so I turned it into my "what i've learned this semester" blog. Enjoy:

Well, I hate to get personal in a blog, but it's pertinent (the subject, not my candor). I'll try to keep the sappiness to a minimum.

Background: I studied in Angers, France for six months last year; met a pretty girl from Taiwan; we kept in touch; things "blossomed"; I surprised her (and myself) and went to Paris (she lives there now) at the last minute for a week over Christmas break; badda-bing badda-boom; we have long conversations in French every day that none of my friends can understand; and I'm moving back to Paris after graduation.

Everyone thinks it's like a movie, how cute.

Okay, so I didn't know much of anything about Taiwan when I first went to France. Turns out, they've had this little problem with China for several decades (I've brought it up a couple of times in the blog/class I think) and China is now said to have over 500 to 700 missiles pointed across the Straights of Taiwan. Occassionally they just toss one in the middle of the Straight to keep everyone on edge.

There's a lot more, but I could write book on it (there are plenty already, I'm sure)....

Anywho, that FREAKS me out. Seriously.

Moving on.

Two weeks ago, my girlfriend, Fanfan (I have this stigma about saying her name to people....yes, it's a funny sounding Chinese name) went home for a couple of weeks to get a VISA to come to NY for a while (another long story made really short: because of Taiwan's precarious position, it's not as easy for Taiwanese people to travel as, say, Americans). While she was there, China basically put into writing what it had been saying for the last several decades, most notably that China reserved the right to "non-peaceful means" of stopping Taiwan from declaring independence.

So that FREAKED me out even more. I read all of the articles, listened to NPR, and I was convinced that my "petite amie," her family, her friends, etc. were going to be vaporized and there was nothing I could do about it.

That's a pretty crappy feeling, let me tell you.

Yet, when I talk to her about, it's she who calms me down, and not the other way around. Her reason: it's all rhetoric. She said that it's a bunch of sensationalism and empty words.

That's not to say nothing will come of it. For instance, yesterday, two days after she'd gone back to Paris, several hundred thousand people gathered in the capital city of Taipei (where Fanfan is from) to protest the new Chinese law.

But, the way she looks at it, China needs Taiwan (they're pretty prosperous right now from what I understand), and Taiwan could never beat China's military force (China is actually becoming very powerful economically as well). In this situation, it's just a bunch of empty talk.

The plot thickens: right now, Europe wants to lift arms sanctions on China (i.e. start selling arms to China again) while the US has vowed to protect Taiwan if they are attacked by China. Imagine that web....

Okay, what's my point? Well, I think this (from what I understand of it) is a perfect example of how rhetoric can either be used completely eneffectively or as a veil for something else. We said that rhetoric was the art of using words to persuade others, right? Well, perhaps the rhetoric that's being used is meant to do exactly the opposite of what it "says" its doing. Does that make sense? Like saying the opposite of what you mean, so that everyone knows what you "mean."

Therefore, using our readings, think of what Habermas (who seems to have been in Taiwan in 2002, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/08/23/99765 ) said about the telos and all humans' innate ability to comprehend that, essentially all societies have a telos and people can evaluate their progress based on their accomplishment of that end. Well, in that sense, neither the Chinese declaration of sovereignty nor the Taiwanese declaration have accomplished their ultimate goal (obviously).

Yet, moreso, Habermas (and Burke) focus a lot on images and their uses in society. Habermas has great reservations about patriotism and the facility of using images to rally people. (See http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/066649.html ). This is much like Burke's "Tyranizing images" (or was that Toulmin/Weaver?)

Fanfan believes in large part, the rhetoric from Taiwan is based on pride. In a country that has its own government, it's own money, liberty, and a successful economy, there really is no pressing need for Chinese recognition of autonomy. She believes (I gotta say that this is a summary of a conversation in French, so it's a very broad treatment, maybe over-symplified) that in large part the argument is centered around one word that Taiwan wants to claim as its own: "independence."

Okay, I'm going to stop here for now. I haven't slept in days.

I guess, now that we've had a heart to heart, that I can go ahead and mention that this is the reason my attendance/blogs have been so sporatic. We have a six hour time difference when she's in Paris, and a 13 hour difference when she was in Taiwan. There's no real convenient time to talk, and it usually ends up being in the middle of the night for one of us.

Habermas and China: http://www.nousland.net/data/2.6.htm

Have a good one,
Robert

Response to Melody

Melody,
I didn't turn in a formal speech....I used note cards during my speech and wrote them from a rough draft I typed in word. If I had a polished version of it, I'd post it for ya, but the one I have is rough, so I'd be embarrassed to post it.......Sorry! ( If you just need one to read and respond to because you need an extra blog, let me know and I'll send it to you!)

Annie

Back to Leff for a moment.

I could have perhaps inserted this blog back into the January archives, but I thought I’d post it now so everyone would have to read it. (Ha! Take that! =) This is regarding Leff’s “Habitation of Rhetoric,” from so long ago…

First and foremost, I’m confused. So, I’m going to try and work it out on Microsoft and if anyone has any insight or corrections for me, I’m completely open to them.

At first, it seems in “Habitation” that Ricoeur’s arguments make much more sense. In fact, I’m still not sure who makes more sense. Leff is saying that decorum is a principle of action…a means of varying appeals to different circumstances and audiences. Because of this, the “essence of rhetoric becomes the constructed rhetorical thing-in-itself.” So, rhetoric does have a product…a product which one can only “create” through the activity of decorum.

Earlier in the article, he mentions poetry and metaphor. I consider metaphor to be a platform, a new way of seeing something old, per say. It gives one the chance to view a situation in a new framework. If I use the term “bell” and someone else comes along and says, “a bell is a cup until it’s been struck,” then I have a new way of looking at a cup and a bell and a new platform with which to explore the possibilities. I think, when Leff moves from talking of metaphor, and muthos, or myth, to decorum, he is essentially meaning the same end is achieved by both. If decorum is an action, rather than a possession of the mind, then one would engage it to find ways to not only appeal to one’s audience, but also to give them a new way of looking at something. Of kicking their perspective up a notch. This also reminds me very much of reading on possibility and the function of it within discourse and persuasion.

He states, “viewed within some specific situation, ths principle manifests itself as a product, as a discourse possessing the density and integrity demanded by that situation.” So, he’s saying that rhetoric, when viewed in a certain light is actually a thing to be contained as well as the container, right? He’s claiming that the action the audience is moved to, or perhaps when the rhetoric hits and registers in the audience’s brain, is the product of rhetoric. I still think rhetoric is more of a container, a driving force, and that the action is the product…but the action is not guaranteed and therefore not necessarily a product, right? It seems that product is more of a possibility but, he likes it better than reality and has moved is philosophy up to the clouds.

=)

Perhaps, and most likely, I’m wrong. So…any thoughts?

Apology

I wanted to write and apologize for my late postings and missing some of your presentations. As my granddad unexpectedly passed away Monday morning, I went home to be with my family and missed class. (Trust me, I would have much rather been in school than to have had to be home under these traumatic circumstances.)

Annie, I know I missed your presentation and was wondering (if you happen to read this blog) if you could post or e-mail me the speech you wrote for your presentation. I would like to read it and respond.

Also, if there happens to be anything else I need to do or know, please e-mail me at melodyf@clemson.edu.

Thanks everyone! I hope you’re enjoying a restful Spring Break. As you can see, I’m busy trying to catch up on work I missed.

RHETORIC

I think we all came into this class with some questions, maybe even some misunderstandings about what rhetoric actually is. I must say, I had my own reservations. From high school on, I had been taught of this mysterious word that seemed to play such a huge part in the human language and in argumentation. Yet, for some reason, it could never be pinned down in the terms I needed to understand it and all it entailed.

This class has helped to clarify some of those terms, though I’ve come to realize that one definition or theory is not sufficient by itself. (Or, at least it hasn’t been for me.) Each theorist has often brought his own sense, his own idea, of the word. Sometimes perspectives have been very similar in thought or theory but have had slight twists. (Of those I have understood, this has been the case.)

I think one of the most significant things I have learned concerning rhetoric are its types and how they should be implemented within the context or situation in which rhetoric exists. We often associate rhetoric with a particular type of context. However, I have learned that this context exists is vast realms; speeches are only one venue of its application. Commercials, even comics, can manipulate and exhibit distinct forms of rhetoric just as well as political debates.

I have had a number of classes in which it has been necessary to understand how to develop an argument—a good one at that. I had always associated rhetoric with speaking, but I have come to learn that its strategies can be just as vital in writing. Understanding how to establish a sense of ethos, logos, and pathos, can influence a good paper as well as control and formulate a good speech. I hope to carry this knowledge on to other classes and use its tactics to expand my writing capabilities.

Jurgen Habermas

Chapter eight says that Habermas was involved in a “systematic and sustained effort to illustrate how a theory of communication is fundamental to and pervades every level of society.” Habermas, through each stage of his theory, seeks to promote or address the idea of “collective discussion within society.”

Habermas divided human knowledge into three subjects: “work, interaction, and power.” These three areas of knowledge, he says, are interrelated. They promote interaction (even competition) among individuals in society. I found it interesting that he associates power with the ability to “[coordinate] action through speech.” Language is the means and container of interaction and knowledge. When I think about this on terms relative to me, this association is rational. The words we choose to use are conveyers of meaning and are generally used to promote an “action” from its receiver—whether that be simply listening, responding, or reflecting. Habermas goes on to address in the end that it is in “rationality” that language finds its power.

When it came to the section on “Universal Pragmatics,” I had a harder time understanding what the theory of “speech-act” really accomplished. The section says the idea of speech act was developed with the notion that “with every utterance, an intentional act is being performed.” Habermas consolidated this idea using three types: “constatives, regulatives, and avowals.” Constatives assert what one understands as true. Regulatives regulate on the basis of an agreement between persons of what is right and what is wrong. The last type, avowals, verbalizes or expresses the internalities of the individual.

The section I found most relevant to rhetoric was Habermas’ section on discourse. The main goal of the speech act is consensus; however, when agreement is not achieved a secondary process takes place: discourse. Argumentation is used to “examine and either accept or reject the problematic claim.” We have seen this most recently demonstrated in the responses we have read from Churchill as he has sought to resolve the “tensions between claims and the validity of those claims.”

Third Time Around

Churchill put out another repudiation on the claim made that he “advocated terrorist attacks on the United States.” In one of my former blogs, I made the statement that it was hard not to keep in mind that his article was a part of a larger piece of publication and there lay the possibility of missing the whole of his argument with this portion being taken out of its greater context. His initial response to the criticism seemed to clearly address the underlying issues for his publication and further explained his reasons for writing as he did.

The primary article I had found, along with the class, to be highly insulting. However, as with his response to the criticism, I found this second response to be written with more tact and prescience. He restates his purpose in writing: “I did not advocate such attacks…I pointed out that they were and will continue to be the inevitable result of a U.S. foreign policy that disregards the rule of law and results in massive death and destruction abroad.” This argument, he says, he has not only “consistently advocated” but also thoroughly studied.

There is definitely a difference between the tone in his actual argument in the excerpt and his tone in his approaches to defending that portion that was exploited. His defense is logical and clear. A good deal of his credibility is established through this approach. He lets his audience know that this is an area he has studied intently, and his argument has been established over the years through the information he has steadily drawn. His argument does not come across in that “attacking” tone. Though he does take the opportunity to counter those who have “[broadcasted] their spin” on his argument, he does so in a professional and comprehensive way.

Poulakos and MLK and a bit of Nietzsche

Oh dear how I wish I could go back and insert this blog into it’s proper place in time, with the other blogs from the first weeks of class. It would be more appropriate. Since that is not an option, I will just present it here, now. Better late than never, right?

Poulakos made me go back and do a bit of research on Aristotle, Plato, and the Sophist’s themselves. It helped when I could draw a clear line between the three. Plato accused the Sophists of teaching immorality and unsociability because they were more concerned with winning the argument rather than presenting truth. The Sophists may have despaired of knowledge, but Plato was lumped with the philosophers more, because even if they didn’t believe in absolute truths, they sought them regardless.

Poulakos does an excellent job of convincing me of his definition…he ties art, timing, and the possible seamlessly. By his definition (since it has been so long since posts were made on this topic, I’ll include his definition: Rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible), Martin Luther King fits perfectly. He appeals to the possibilities of a better future. At the beginning of the speech, he presents his ethos and simultaneously sets up just how appropriate it was for him to be doing the activities he was. His logos alone sets up the timeliness. It is true that oppressors never feel the time is right to give up their place; no one ever feels it is the right time to lose something. MLK’s logic and phrasing is beautiful. And Poulakos would say that he in not merely addressing the actual state of affairs, the realities of oppression and segregation, but he is saying that it will never be more appropriate to fight for a better future. It is not boring and appeals to men’s sense of not wanting to be where they are. MLK didn’t want their protests to cloud the issues in an upcoming election--how is that for a sense of appropriateness and knowing about the proper timing to make words/actions the most effective? Teaching the protestors to receive blows without retaliating? Not only does this appeal to one’s pathos, but also is just another example of how clearly he understood timing, art, and appropriateness.

The only problem I have with all of this is very slight and inconsequential. It is my understanding that Poulakos is not basing his definition of rhetoric on the idea that the Sophist’s did not believe in absolute maxims. However, a paradox does creep into my mind. It’s obvious--and should be well known--that MLK did believe in certain basic truths. He was arguing for them, persuading for them, and making changes for them. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I feel the Sophist’s would have been able to make both sides seem equally true. Especially depending on which audience they were paid to address. I know this was not the point of coupling the MLK reading with Poulakos; I couldn’t help but mention it.

One other thing that jumped out at me was Poulakos’ phrase, “even though [the possible] opposes the actual, it always seeks to become actualized.” This brought to mind Nietzsche’s concept of active and reactive forces. A simplified explanation is that he believed that reactive forces seek to keep the active forces from getting where they’re going, and the active forces just GO. Artistic movements are classified as active forces and say, a religious opposition to the artistic movement (perhaps they think it is immoral) would be considered a reactive force. So, if the possible is always seeking to become actualized, they would be considered active forces.

(And here is just something I’ve been thinking of. If anyone has any ideas for how to improve this little newborn theory of mine, please help!)

As to rhetoric as a container and not a thing to be contained…it seems to me there is a division. Of course, I’m only considering this with Nietzsche’s ideas and not by themselves. An active force’s movement/rhetoric would be the container. It presents not something actual, but something that is a possibility. Reactive forces present the actuality of things--they typically oppose change and are constantly resentful of active forces (according to Nietzsche). Their movement/rhetoric presents reality. Wouldn’t their rhetoric then be considered something that is contained?

Just some thoughts.

CA's Thoughts about Rhetoric

Okay, so I guess we are winding down the semester... spring break is here, multimedia presentations are due soon, and that means that final exams are right around the corner! I wanted to take a few moments to reflect back on a few things that have happened to me and what I think about English 492/692 up until this point.

As many of you know, I was a Political Science major and a Communication Studies minor last year. After looking at my transcript, I noticed that I could take just a few more classes and double major in both subjects. One of the classes that I needed for the Communication Studies degree was this class... Classical or Modern Rhetoric. My first impression was that Modern Rhetoric had to be easier than the classical one. Who wants to read about old, white, and dead guys from a long time ago... not exactly my cup of tea. I thought this class would be the lesser of the two evils. I was also glad to know that I would know someone else in the class because David is a COMM major and I guess that is a feeling of security by knowing someone in the class.

I like the set-up of our class. I had used a type of internet posting in a previous COMM class, but I was new to the Blogger.

More Ward Churchill Stuff

Being the news dork that I am, I read the newspapers and broadcasting websites every morning. I found some interesting quotes from our guy Ward Churchill from the Associated Press. Here is the link: http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0305/214325.html

Also, there is an article about Mr. Churchill in this week's edition of the Tiger Town Observer. If you're not familiar with this paper, it is the self-proclaimed "conservative journal of news and events." From an educated reader's standpoint, the arguements made in it are so stupid, they might actually be funny.

Pre-Spring Break Analysis

Dear Fellow Companions of Rhetoric,

This journey we have taken thus far has brought new and great knowledge to our minds; but alas, our minds are feeble considering they are so utterly and totally consumed with SPRING BREAK right now.

Yea, guys, I gotta say its been a good run so far. I've enjoyed class, the discussions, and I've learned a lot about rhetoric, and I seem to find it in everday talk. Just trying to convince someone to go to lunch:

1. (Logos) Last week, you went to lunch with so-and-so every MWF, so you can at least go to lunch with me just once.
2. (Ethos) I'm totally better looking, so it only makes sense that you'd wanna be seen in public with me.
3. (Pathos) Why, why, why do you insist on crushing me like this? My mom won't speak to me and my dog got ran over yesterday? Dear God, does it end?
4. (Deliberative and Forensic) So where are we going to eat lunch? I had Keith Street yesterday, Zaxby's the day before, and I'm not really feeling all the much like Potbelly...

So as you can see, we use rhetoric every day whether we realize it or not. And what is so interesting is that after taking Modern Rhetoric, you can't help but notice. I feel myself analyze a conversation, and I'm like, "whoah, man, brakes-- totally not falling for that pathos, its really weak man, step it up." People are like, "do whaaaaaaat"

So yea, rhetoric has really made me think about the power of persuasion, technique for talking to people and getting them to see your point of view.

One other thing, this class has really dealt with a lot of issues all around the world, things we get side-tracked on have really opened my eyes to a lot of new things. I think the class is great and I love the people in it--it just seems really unique and class-faciliated, and i love it.

Plus, I get to make crazy comments! 70 virgins, kamikazis, and who else knows what, need I say more...

Another Post on Tasers...

Good job on the presentation!
I found it to be very engaging to the audience. I apologize for laughing so much at the video during your presentation (hey, I wasn't the only one!!)...but you have to admit it was pretty hysterical.

=)

As for the animal testing issue, I agree that its a whole different matter. I wonder what TYPE of animals they used, because animals generally will react to things different than humans. Something like a taser might be good to test on an animal first, but I hate that we test medicine and make-up on them. There's no way they're going to react the same as humans. Perhaps to death they'll react the same, but surely not to skin irritations and various side effects.

Hmm. I know this wasn't what you were focusing on; I just wanted to say nice job and I think it may be alright to test a taser gun on an animal first. What I don't understand, is that if they've figured out mathematically how many volts a person can have without dying...do we really need to test them? They've probably already tested animals for defibrillators and such. Oh well.

I still agree with the use of tasers, though. Great job!

And for the record....over spring break there will appear MANY blog posts from me. Just be forewarned.

Rhetoric and Jillian.

This class has opened many new doors for me in regards to language. Not only is it important to be able to speak and convince well, but it is also important to be able to decipher through the convincing means of others. I still agree that rhetoric is a container and not a thing to be contained, but there are so many ways of approaching it--it’s helpful to know some of the techniques and apply them to everyone from car salesmen to news reporters to some butt-hole on campus who tries to stage a fake anti-war rally and then laughs and says “Just joking! I‘m for the war!” It’s great to be able to decipher motives. Or try to, rather. Seriously, his only telos was to offend the people he tricked…though I must admit I wasn’t there.

At any rate, I shouldn’t be surprised at just how many people have studied and broken down the art of rhetoric, but I think I must be a bit. Like some others in the class (I think Annie had it in her post) I have heard many people say “that’s rhetorical” and not had a clear definition. I think when I have heard someone say the word they were thinking back to the Sophist’s, and didn’t know. I even have a copy of Aristotle’s “Rhetoric,” though unfortunately, I bought it in a thrift store when I was younger and never read it. It’s now on my reading list for the summer, however. No ethos for me!

I don’t know very much about Michel Foucalt, but I was slighty surprised to find him in “Contemporary Perspectives.” He’s along the lines of Derrida and Bataille, right? I guess once we learned that rhetoric can take many forms, and then after reading Burke’s symbol system, it started to make more sense. Words are symbols that bring to mind a new set of symbols within the hearer or reader…and if you fine-comb not only your speech/movie/poster/
commercial/editorial, etc. but also your audience, you actually CAN lead people along a path to arrive at a destination chosen by you.

My roommates are all conspiracy buffs, for better or worse, and through discourse with them over what I have learned this semester, coupled with my own observations and the examples of history, the most important thing that has stuck out to me is that rhetoric can be used to mislead people. I think most of my previous blogs have discussed this, though, so I won’t repeat myself. It’s just refreshing to think I may have a bit of a grasp on the certain techniques. For example, I was suckered into trading in my paid-off car at a dealer (where it was just having the alarm fixed) for a brand new expensive car and now I’m in debt. If I had taken this class last semester, I would have been able to see that they were being deliberative when they said my car would eventually break down (in like fifteen years!) and they were playing with my emotion when they hyped up the coolness of having a new car. I’ve never been a car buff or ever even cared about cars and if they were fast, etc. Except for about forty-five minutes that day. Le sigh. It’s like I knew they were trying to sell me a car, but I wasn’t armed to fight their arguments and so I lost. My ethos just keeps diminishing, doesn’t it? =)

The biggest gain from this class, however, is a more critical eye of news. It’s given me a platform with which to evaluate not only their presentation, but also to look more closely and see if things are truly as they say. (And, for all the Darfur presenters, I have a friend taking speech at Tri-County Tech and was able to convince her to give a persuasive speech about Darfur and why people in her class should donate money.) A lot truly does go on behind the scenes with words, and it’s a great art to study for any philosophy, English, communications, and similar majors. Anyone who is in school in an area where they don’t learn a trade but, rather, are instead taught to think and evaluate for themselves will find rhetoric to come in very handy.

"Civilization is measured by its power to create and enforce distinctions." ~ Weaver

Things I have learned from this class

I have learned quite a bit this semester. First, I must agree with Rebekah that I have learned to blog. I am a technological idiot but from this class I have learned a great deal about how to blog and how to produce powerpoints and download videos. This sounds simple enough but trust me, for me this is a major improvement. Also, I ordered my first book from Amazon for the class.
In addition to these technological advancements, I have also learned a great deal about rhetoric. I have tried to master a definition of rhetoric; however, I have been unable to pinpoint one particular definition that satisfies all the parts that I learned. While I have been unable to pinpoint one particular definition, I have learned to identify rhetoric when it is shown to me. For this matter, I have learned that rhetoric is shown in almost everything. I have learned the extent to which rhetoric has invaded my life; it is evident on TV, in speeches, articles, essays, and even in everyday speech between friends. Even something as simple as “Let’s go to dinner” is rhetoric. First, you are trying to convince your friend that you are hungry and then you will have to convince them of where you want to eat and why that place in better than another place.
In realizing how rhetoric affects every aspect of life; I have also realized that I will need to be able to identify the parts of rhetoric so that I can better decipher the rhetoric that surrounds me. From this class, I have learned of logos, ethos, and pathos. I have learned that logos is the most important followed by ethos and lastly pathos. However, I have seen that most rhetoric is in the form of pathos and therefore I should be skeptical of the logos which occupies the pathos.
From this class, I have also learned to distinguish the telos of an argument. This is going to be very important to me for several reasons. First, I am planning to become a lawyer and the use of telos is very important. It will be vital that I am able to distinguish the telos of the opposite side and that I am able to either expose or disguise (not that a lawyer would ever be sneaky) my telos in the proper way. Also, the understanding of telos is important for everyday life so that one can identify the true overall purpose of the rhetoric by which they are being affected.
I have also learned the difference between rhetoric that is epistemic and that which is not. I know that there are differing schools of whether rhetoric is epistemic or not; however, I believe that it can be either. Some types of rhetoric can be epistemic either in the finding or presenting process and other types are not epistemic at all.
Overall, this class has helped me to learn a great deal about the world that surrounds me and how that world affects me. I have learned how to navigate through others’ rhetoric and how to better produce my own.

What I've Learned From Modern Rhetoric 692

What have I learned about rhetoric? Well, for starters, I learned what rhetoric is!!! I had heard the word used many times in my English classes, especially in my AP English class in high school, I think; but I never cared to figure out what it meant. I have learned that rhetoric is VERY political. For me, someone who knows NADA about politics, the class became a wealth of information concerning what was happening in the world today and how our leaders are conveying the information to us.

I’ve learned that rhetoric is not only what you say, but how you are saying it. Timing is everything! Audience should be considered every time you make a speech. If you aren’t speaking at a time when the issue at hand is being debated you aren’t going to make as much as an impression. Also, if you aren’t considering who your audience is, whether or not they are educated, whether or not they might agree or disagree with you to begin with, where they come from, how you might identify with them, how you can make them sympathize or even empathize with what you are speaking about, the speech will not be as effective.

While many of the readings, I have to say, were too philosophical for my taste (in other words, I couldn’t understand most of them) I did get the main points about organization and techniques to use in speeches to make them effective….(That’s what I was supposed to get out of them, correct? J)

How will I use what I learned from this class so far in the real world? I can most definitely say that I WILL CERTAINLY remember to include logos, pathos, and ethos in any formal speeches I give in my professional career. I will also, unavoidably, analyze our political leaders’ speeches in ways I never did before. I will certainly be aware of the rhetoric that comes in advertising and the media, thanks to many of the presentations. I think I will be able to apply what I learned about rhetoric to situations I never considered before, even through most of the beginning of the semester. When I came into the multimedia presentation project, I was searching for speeches, and only speeches. That’s what I though rhetoric was because of the way we learned about rhetoric in the beginning. Now I am aware that rhetoric, like people, comes in all shapes and sizes (and forms). It is out there everywhere, in commercials, in books, on billboards, in magazines, on the radio in songs….EVERYWHERE. Where before, I avoided learning what it meant, now it is impossible to avoid recognizing it every day.

Progress Report

I have been convinced thus far this semester that the best way to define rhetoric, the most effective way to foster understanding and encourage the initial grasping of the art, is by observation and analysis of examples. Rhetoric takes many forms; it can be written, spoken, or visual. Thus it is found not only in textbooks and speeches, but on billboards, on television advertisements, and in daily conversations. Rhetoric has also evolved throughout the course of history. Originally isolated for study by Greeks, men like Poulakos, Leff, Scott, Bitzer, Toulmin, Weaver, Burke, and Habermas have devoted great thought and effort into developing the definition and dissecting the amorphous discipline. These men relied on examples to form the foundation for their analysis; they asked questions about what worked or did not work in a speech, document, image, and why or why not. Then they gave names and classifications to their systems.

Rhetoric is unavoidable; everyone uses it multiple times each day, whether to convince ourselves to stop hitting the snooze and get out of bed or to persuade the country that it is in our best interests to go to war. We are wise to follow the models of those who have determined methods of recognizing rhetoric and to employ the schema practiced in class. We are inundated with rhetoric from our country’s leaders to our local clothing stores. We must decide what exactly is said and what is intended to be accomplished by the message, whether it is working, why it is or is not working, and how we should then respond.

I have learned that the success of rhetoric is dependent on the interpretation of the audience. Using basic principles of ethos, logos, and pathos oriented toward an obvious telos supported by sound kairos, a rhetor [and we are all rhetors] is able to elicit the desired response. I will employ these methods when writing papers for school, documents for businesses, giving presentations – even among friends and family. And I will be aware that these very same methods are always being used on me.

Response to the Taser comments and other stuff

Thanks to all that wrote good things about my presentation! It made my day to read your nice comments!:) I wanted to take this blog to respond to some of the arguments brought up in class after my presentation. While I was secretly hoping you wouldn’t bring these up, you guys are smart, so I should have figured…..

First off, yes, the Taser is tested on animals. I am sorry to say that many things are tested on animals before being used on a human. If I have the choice of testing on a human or animal though, the animal is going to be selected first. Not many people are going to select humans to try out something that could be lethal in the long run…. I’m just trying to be reasonable, not callous or insensitive. I do care about animals, but I think that if we are working to better society and keep society healthier or safer, animals are being used for a great cause.

Second, I understood the concern about normal people (not officers) owning Taser guns. I DID NOT intend to address that in my presentation because it is a separate issue altogether. I only wanted to address the issue of police being able to use them. There are still some states that will not allow officers to carry the Taser gun and I think they would benefit from allowing their officers to use them. As I said in my presentation, THEY ARE SAVING LIVES.

Another issue is the safety concern. Yes, they can be dangerous. What weapon isn’t? Yes, they do cause unsightly bruising…..(oh well, you shouldn’t have been threatening the officer in the first place now, should you have been?) A bruise will go away and the hurt will fade fast; a bullet hole will not go away so fast…. I think suspects are let off too easily. I’m one of those “harsher punishments for parole violators” (thanks Miss Congeniality) people who believes these criminals and suspects need to be kept in check. Tasers do that, but not to the extreme extent of a deadly firearm.

As far as the ethos, pathos, and logos part of my presentation, I believe I had TONS of logos. Ethos, I struggled with, honestly, to try and figure how I could be perceived as credible. The only way I could figure is that I grew up around law enforcement my whole life and knew enough about what goes on to take a strong stance about the issue. As far as pathos goes, I tried to let the audience see it from the point of view of a little girl who was scared that her father might be killed out in the field. These are honest emotions that a kid feels when she sees her parent doing incredibly dangerous work. Though I have to admit that as a kid, I didn’t realize the extent of the danger my father was in when he left every time. It became normal to see him in a swat team uniform leaving the house. I understand much more, now that I’m older, the risks he was taking as an agent.

So, in conclusion here, thanks everyone again for your comments. I hope I did convince a couple of you or at least educated you more on the subject.

taser guns

Unfortunately I missed Annie's powerpoint on the use of taser guns on Tuesday. According to other classmates' blog postings Annie did an excellant job of using the rhetoric terms we have been discussing all semester. Although I wasn't there to hear both sides of the argument, I have to say that I am for the use of taser guns. I believe that the use of taser guns by police officers could reduce the serious injuries to criminals and other bystanders during altercations. Some may argue that taser guns have a risk of long-term effects, but no more than the use of a firearm. I'm sure the class discussion on the use of taser guns was very interesting and I am sorry that I missed it.

What I've Learned

I think that the main thing I’ve taken away from this class is the ability to recognize rhetoric—in speeches, in the media, in everyday life. Before I truly understood was rhetoric was (when I signed up for the class I had only a slight idea of what it meant) I didn’t recognize what went into creating a persuasive piece of writing. It seems so simple now, and It’s funny because, as Kevin mentioned in an earlier post, you even notice it in everyday conversation with friends. I’ve come to the realization that my roommate is much more manipulative than I gave her credit for—her puppy dog eyes and sad comments when I express the urge to stay in on a weekend night are probably not because she wants me to go out and have a good time. I see now that she’s been trying to appeal to my pathos in her attempt to be accompanied downtown and not have to fly solo. I’ve learned to search/listen for logos—if there aren’t straight facts being presented, it’s usually a sign that you’re being deceived somehow. Heavy on the pathos + no logos is a recipe for disaster. Similarly, if a speaker/writer does not establish their ethos, who is to say they are a credible source? It’s something a lot of people never think to question, and that can be dangerous as well. It’s definitely unfortunate that more people are not exposed to the components of rhetoric. It seems crazy, considering it’s all around us every day of our lives. We, as a society, should be much more aware of the ways in which people try to manipulate our decisions, especially in the political realm, or else we let ourselves be susceptible to being persuaded into things we don’t truly understand. While it’s horrible to think that it is merely the most apt rhetorician that will always come out on top (especially in things as important as presidential elections) this is only the case if we let ourselves be outsmarted. I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to have been educated on the topic and to have learned things that will change my perspective for the rest of my life.

habermas

I found it interesting that while Habermas studied at the Frankfurt school he refused to use the label of Marxist to describe himself. Much of what his ideas are based around though were the same ideas of Marxism. He describes his philosophical approach as the reconstruction of Marxism. The way Habermas approaches communication is based on the ideas of Marxism. Also important to Habermas’s approach to communication is the ideas that came out of the Enlightenment.
Habermas splits the interests of human activity into three separate parts. The first of these is work, which Habermas says is the way humans control the environment that they live in. Through work, humans can provide for themselves what they need to survive. The second interest is interaction. According to Habermas, humans need to interact with one another in groups to survive. Through language and other ways of communication, are the ways humans can keep the social groups going. The third aspect of life is power. The social groups that the second interest puts humans in always involve a hierarchy of power.
All of the interests discussed by Habermas would not be possible without the use of language. According to Habermas the most fundamental way of communicating through language is speech. Habermas gives three types of speech: constatives, regulatives, and avowals. Habermass gave the example of “The grass is green” to explain what constatives is. The point of constatives is to assert the truth. Regulatives connect the speaker with the audience. Regulatives say what should or should not be done. The third type of speech is avowals. In avowals the speaker expresses what he or she wishes to be done about certain truthfulness. Habermas acknowledges that his theories about the different types of speeches may have some holes in them. He doesn’t mean for everything he says to be taken as concrete.

What is rhetoric???

The most important thing I have learned this semester is the meaning of rhetoric. Up until the first day of class, I didn't have a clue what rhetoric is. I have since discovered not only just the simple definition of rhetoric, but also the different views on rhetoric.
The most useful thing I have gotten out of this class is the rhetoric terms we have based most of our discussions around. I actually believe that knowing about these terms now will make me a better public speaker in the future. The speech teacher I had here at Clemson never taught me the correct way to organize my speeches using logos, ethos, and pathos. My speeches in the past could have been much more effective if I had known about these rhetoric terms earlier. A better understanding of these rhetoric terms has also given me the ability to listen to someone else's speech and determine whether or not their speech is effective enough. Taking this class doesn't make me an expert by far, but I do feel more confident now when criticizing another person's public speech.

Attempt at Habermas

I am not totally sure what Habermas is really saying that relates to rhetoric but heres a shot at it. Habermas is separating the public and private spheres. These are spheres that were recognized as important parts of life, but have sort of slipped by the wayside. He says that to be a sphere of influence, the people involved must share common believes and ideas. In the public sphere, you would only discuss and suggest things that fit into the common beliefs that you share. For example, in America we all share the belief of freedom so things that allow freedom can commonly be discussed; whereas, we do not all share a common belief in religion and so religion is something that is kept for a smaller, more private sphere.
Habermas also says that there are three things that define the public sphere: work, interaction, and power. He says that these things carry between the public and private spheres. Habermas also introduces the idea of the “lifeworld” which he defines as “the immediate miliu of the individual social actor” (242). He says that the lifeworld is the life in the public sphere and the social world.
I am not totally sure on what exactly he is saying about rhetoric but perhaps it has something to do with the different types of rhetoric that can be used in each sphere.

Annie's Presentation!

Great presentation! Annie used a lot of rhetorical strategies throughout her presentation. She definitely used a lot of logos. Firstly, in naming specific brands of guns and how they worked, and secondly by showing statistics on how many people are fatally injured by tazer guns in comparison to other, more deadly weapons, principally guns. In addition to the visual rhetoric of this comparative graph, she also showed a clip of a tazer gun in use in order to show its power. She played another clip too, in which a tazer gun was being used by a police officer to stun a possibly dangerous criminal. It made it very obvious that the guns are used primarily as weapons of defense, rather than with an intent to kill. She did a good job of disputing the opposing viewpoint, which is that there is a possibility of the tazer guns being abused by police officers. She pointed out that there are ways to track the number of times a gun has been used, so that this possible problem could be prevented (again, a good use of logos!). She established her ethos by using quotes from actual police officers from all over the nation who were in support of tazer guns. The presentation was also heavily pathos-based- especially the end- as she culminated by showing a picture of her father and his fellow police officers. She said that she “feels safer knowing that her daddy is protected.” Come on… is that the epitome of pathos or what?! =)

Tasers!!!! (response to Annie's presentation)

I thought Annie did a great job on her speech and presentation. She did all of the things we have discussed that a good rhetor should do. I know the class was split on their decision, but she convinced me that tasers were a good option between a baton and firearm. This was the point she addressed that made me agree with her. I never really thought about it before, that police officers do not have much of an option in ways to protect themselves, and I definately think there needs to be something to fill the large gap that falls between the baton and gun.
She created ethos for herself right away by being the daughter of someone who is in a dangerous job and is directly affected by criminals and their actions. I also thought she addes ethos by showing how much research she had done, quoting professionals, and her father. She also used a lot of logos in her speech. From all of the researcha that she did, she made sure to include plently of statistics that backed the points she was making. She also had uses of pathos as well. Her pathos came from trying to get the audience to put themselves in her shoes and know what it feels like to worry about a parent, and also the fact of showing how many lives can be saved from using tasers (instead of having to resort to a gun if the baton is not enough).
The most interesting point I thought she addressed was the comparison between tasers a fibbrilators. It was interesting to see the way that the two compare.
Overall, I thought she did really well and made a good argument and implemented rhetoric techniques well in order to persuade her audience.

Response to Annie and Tasers

First, I wanted to congratulate Annie on such a good presentation. She was the only person willing to step up and present her own speech. I feel that it was much more difficult for her to present her own work rather than to analyze someone else’s work. So…job well done! I think that she did a wonderful job presenting her topic.
I liked that she began by stating that she was only referring to the tasers in reference to police officers and officials, not in reference to civilians. I think that this is an important distinction to make. I felt that she quickly established her ethos as a speaker because she is the daughter of an official, who put his life on the line everyday. She also furthered this ethos with the amount of research she had done on the topic of tasers. Her research also contributed to her logos because she was able to use a great deal of statistics and quotes from professionals. I also thought it was important that she specified which statistics and quotes came from the taser website and which came from unbiased groups. She had told me (and mentioned in her blog) that she was having a difficult time incorporating pathos into her speech. She was able to incorporate a small bit at the end of the speech; however, I believe that the lack of pathos was helpful to her speech because she was able to use more logos (which is more important).
I also liked the way that she addressed the arguments that are used against the taser gun. She took the arguments and countered them with statistics and facts. I also liked the quote (I don’t exactly remember it) that it is the person, not the weapon that is in control. I believe that this is true and that if an officer is going to misuse the weapon then he is likely to also misuse other weapons and perhaps should not be given power. She also presented the idea of a counter on the gun which would allow the use of the gun to be tracked.
I must say that I did not know that much about the use of tasers prior to Annie’s speech; however, I felt that I am now well-informed. I do see the potential dangers of the use of the tasers; however, I believe that these risks are much less than those associated with a handgun. Also, if a person is threatening an officer to the point of the officer’s drawing his gun, then I believe that these risks are acceptable. I must say that Annie’s speech has convinced me that the use of tasers is a good middle ground between a baton and a gun.

hey gang...

I apologize for missing class today... I went to Redfern, aka Deathfern, and they think I have pneumonia... needless to say I am going to get a second opinion. I wanted to say that if anyone is having problems coming up with a topic for the Creative Response, please email me at connelb@clemson.edu . I have some extra ideas that I would be glad to share with some people... just as a heads up, I am going to do something about the response to the Ward Churchill piece. If I don't see you guys, have a fun and safe spring break.

Taser Tag

My title probably invokes a crude image; but really, if Taser guns are available for public purchase, who knows but it would be thought of. I was wondering if one would have to have a license to purchase a Taser gun. I could see them being useful to farmers, but I think it might be a good idea to allow other purchases only to those with concealed weapons licenses.
I think that Annie did a thorough job with her presentation. Her ethos was established not only through her relation to official users of the weapon, but also through her research of objections to Tasers. She addressed each argument opposing Taser Guns with valid, research-supported responses. Some might object to testing on animals, but what small percentage of any product or procedure do we not test on animals? Some might say that Tasers are too easily abused; any individual given any amount of power struggles not to abuse it, and it was shown what tracking devices are implemented to regulate officers. Some claim that Tasers are just as deadly as guns, but evidence proves that to be false and suggests that the benefits far outweigh the costs.
I did not know much about Taser Guns before this presentation, but I was convinced that they are a good technological development that deserves implementation and has the potential to better our justice system.

Wow...I didn't realize that I was so passionate about sports until I started writing

I wanted to start by saying that I think that everyone who has presented has done a wonderful job on their presentations. I have learned a great deal of the presentations and enjoy the variety of topics that people have chosen. I also believe that it helps that we were able to choose something that we were passionate about. I know that I was very avid about my subject (baby abandonment) and that certainly helped me to better present the rhetoric of it. I also felt that CA and David were passionate about their topic of Violence in Sports and the media coverage of that violence.
I was one of the many people who was not even aware of that Mr. Stern had even given a speech following the NBA incident. I had seen the footage of the fight MANY times, but had yet to hear of the speech that followed it. I think that this is an important point to make because it does show how the media covers only what will draw attention. Most people wanted to see the fight, but only the avid sports fans were likely to care what action was being taken about situation. I must; however, agree with the general consensus that Mr. Stern did seem overly concerned or sincere in his speech. While I agree on his lack of interest, I do not agree that he was wrong to state that Clemson and USC should deal with their own problems.
I am of the opinion that these teams are not in his realm. He can not control their actions nor can he control the coverage of the NBA incident or how much TV the college athletes watch. He apologized for the actions of his teams and dolled out punishments as needed; however, he can not be held responsible for the actions of a college football team.
I also must disagree that the NBA fight was truly related to the Clemson vs. USC fight. I believe that there is some connection to be made; however, the connection is not between these two fights but rather between the fights and the rising tread towards violence in sports. The problem of violence in sports has been a rising issue throughout the world over the past several years. I believe that the timing of these particular fights were simply a mere coincidence. I feel that since there was only a difference of one night between the fights and during that night the Clemson and USC football players were in a hotel preparing for their game they were not likely to have known the full attention that the NBA fight was receiving. I do not believe that Bowden can attribute the mistakes of Clemson’s players to the faults of the NBA players.
Also as a side note, while most of us wish to believe that people do not go the game to see a fight, the people at the game did enjoy the fight. Everyone was yelling and was excited to see the fight. This is not the fault of the players or the media. Also the media would not cover such stories so avidly if the people did not support the coverage. Everyone rushed out to buy the articles and pictures of the events and watched them over and over on TV. If people would not show such interest in the violence in sports then the number of cases would diminish. If a great number of people would refuse to buy the newspapers or watch the coverage of such events or stopped buying tickets for teams who displayed such behavior then the players and media would have more incentive to stop the violence and coverage. I am not saying that the general audience is completely to blame but they are supporting such behavior.

Rebekah, On the Art of Speaking Rhetorically

I’m putting this up early…I hope that’s okay, but I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t late.

What I’ve learned: I’ve learned that I can blog. Yes, for a semester at least I’ve joined that realm of laptop-toting college students who use the web to pursue their intellectual endeavors. My issue was that blogging reminds me of AIM, and I really, really hate AIM. It’s a waste of time and I’ve seen people fail classes because of it, but I’ve never seen anything good enough result from it to convince me to ever reinstall the wretched virus on my computer ever again. I understand now that blogging is different from AIM in that people don’t announce their presence and expect you to talk to them at strange hours of the day or night. Posting allows the blogger to peruse at his or her leisure, and so I give it some scholarly legitimacy now.

In addition to blogging, something I’ve learned in this class is what rhetoric is, and how it affects us today. I’d heard people say something “rhetorically” but would never ask them what they meant by it because I guess I thought I already knew! Now I see that that phrase is used incorrectly most of the time, and so I’ll be careful how I use it in the future. If I’m not too paranoid.

Finally, the recent re-acknowledgment of rhetoric in the philosophical realm explains the rise in the communications major, and others stemming from it. Communications majors still struggle with attaining equal status with other, more established courses of study (maybe I’m wrong – Comm majors, what do you think?), and so the fact that it is relatively new as a stand-alone major explains the reaction. It’s a lot like the rivalry between architecture and landscape architecture students; architects call larch students things like tree-huggers and hippies, and they call us pompous and snobby. I had a class once with arch and larch students, and the professor used the term “landscapers” to differentiate between us. They didn’t like that very much.

I took this class because I wanted to graduate in May…and Rhetoric 492 would get me there! I’ve really enjoyed the class dynamic and the way that very big issues are discussed relatively freely. I think that is in good part due to the blogs because they cause us to communicate with each other out of class, but also because we’re a pretty informal group as a whole. And it’s hard to be serious when you’re meeting over lunch. One thing I would improve upon, though, is more thorough discussion in class of the articles we’re reading. The blogs allow us to say what we’re thinking, but a lot of times we’re pretty off the mark because we misunderstood something. There’s a lot of good stuff in the articles, and I feel like I’m missing a lot of it because it isn’t reinforced later on.

Jurgen Habermas, Theorist of Lotions

As a disclaimer for the immature blog title in reaction to the Habermas biography, in reality I'm doing you all a favor because you'll be able to recall his name on the final exam. Just remember: Jergen's Have-A-Mess.

That being said, (and then put aside!), the brief biography of Dr. Habermas shows that he is someone whose life situation directly impacted what he chose to devote himself to. By that I mean that he may have never developed as a theorist on political issues had he not been confronted with the horrific contradictions of the Nazi party and the Holocaust. Many people were dealt the same hand of cards as he and chose to react in a different way, but I think that it's safe to say he most likely would have chosen a very different path had he grown up elsewhere.

Habermas takes the deconstructive approach to his ideas in that he goes back to what has already been discussed, then he deconstructs it - takes it apart - and puts it back together in another way that isn't completely divergent from the original. But it could be nearly unrecognizable, depending on where he's coming from. The most obvious example of this is Habermas' interest in the Enlightenment, using reason to determine rather than ideals. Reason, he thinks, should determine ideals. To quote the book, "The contradictions of a society constitute its ideologies - systems of irrational or distorted beliefs that maintain their legitimacy despite the fact that they cannot be validated if subjected to rational discourse" (235).

The rhetoric Habermas is interested in is a rhetoric of equality - where everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. He feels that "the citizen is guaranteed the right of access to discussion in the public sphere by virtue of the abstract right of humanness" (239). I wonder if Habermas' philosophy had much influence in the realm of international justice, being rooted in the idea that all people are equal and thus should be valued the same. The problem here is what his students and many of his other critics have pointed out in the past, that he is idealistic and talks - but does not necessarily cause action. The equality issue is one, indeed, that we've been talking about for a very long time, and it is still not fully realized. But, in his defense, if no one wants to talk then you can guarantee nothing will ever happen. That is addressed on page 242, when it says, "power itself is embedded in the process of coordinating action through speech." Thus Habermas acknowledges this; perhaps, though, he is not the one performing said coordinated action.

Finally, the section on discourse was particularly good; discourse is something different from discussion. In discourse, "nothing is taken for granted" (249). This is where real things are at stake, where every piece of evidence or argument must be backed up. This is where the choice of words, even the tone of voice, makes a difference. A discussion can be something people engage in when they just want to get something off their chests, not particularly urgent on arriving at a solution. Habermas' critical divergence, then, is claiming that there are levels of speaking, discourse of which is the highest, then levels of discourse until one arrives at a type of rhetorical nirvana. Idealistic for sure, but ideas must arrive from someplace.

Burke Pentad

I like to think of the Pentad as a game of "Clue"! Who done it. Where they done it. And what dey done it wit.

Act: What was done? Col. Mustered was Murdered.
Agent: Who killed him? Miss Scarlet.
Agency: What she killed him with? A candle stick!, or maybe it was the lead pipe?
Scene: Where'd she killed him? In the library...but then she drug his body into the kitchen!Purpose: Why'd she kill him? She preferred Grey Poupon! he he!

Burke v Churchill

Burke says that in order to effectively persuade someone you must first identify with that person: “You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his.” You must relate to persuade. That was the problem with Churchill. He could not relate, nor did he try to relate to the audience. Without similarities or common ground it is easy to blow someone off.

While some Europeans were able to agree with Churchill through antithesis or identification; few Westerners were. Churchill’s piece also did not hold to Burke’s notion that “people communicate in an attempt to elimination division.” While rhetoric attempts to bring about agreement through language; Churchill’s message was lost on many.

ok- my last blog- BUT THIS ONE IS THE ONE TO LOOK AT

Hey you guys....these are some places to look at info on Tasers....one website, the other two you can access in the articles area of the library website....These will give you an idea of what I will be talking about in case you are interested-

Annie

“Police Use of Electro-Shock Guns.” Issues and Controversies 26 March 2004. FACTS.com. Facts On File News Services. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 March 2005.

Tasers Can be Useful- http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/story/4606650p-4280722c.html

Hamilton, Anita. “Stun Guns For Everyone: Are tasers the ultimate in self-defense or tools of torture? A new model for consumers sparks debate.” Time 4 Feb. 2002: 50. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 3 Feb. 2005

Oh dear....tried to attach my taser biblio to a blog, but it wouldn't let me.....I don't know what to tell you guys. maybe I'll try to get a class list from fishman to send to you guys

taser info for all

I was told to provide ya'll with places you could find information on the taser gun- what I'm doing my presentation on on Tues. I am sending most of a bibliography to you all on a blog. Hope this helps.....if not, any newspaper will have something to say about them I bet:) See you all on Tues.

Taser PowerPoint Bibliography

Berenson, Alex. “S.E.C. Looking At Safety Data And Big Order For Taser Guns.” New

York Times 8 Jan 2005: C1. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. InfoTrac.

Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.

Burress, Charles. “SALINAS; Man hit by police stun guns dies 2 days later; Taser

use, links to deaths controversial.” San Francisco Chronicle 22 Feb 2005: B5.

Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.

“Cardiac Safety Study Regarding TASER Technology Published in Leading Cardiology

Journal.” News Release. 13 Jan. 2005. Taser International. 8 March 2005

newsArticle&ID=662359&highlight=>.

Crowley, Peter. “Gilroy, Calif., police defend safety of Taser stun guns.” The

Dispatch (Gilroy, California) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News) 22 July

2004: p.NA. InfoTrac OneFile. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.

Fish, Raymond M., and Leslie A. Geddes. “Effects of stun guns and tasers.” Lancet 358.9283 (1 Sept. 2001): 687, 2p. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition.

EBSCOhost. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.

“Georgia State Legislature Subcommittee Recommends ‘Don Not Pass’ on Proposed

Legislation to Ban TASER (TM) Devices.” News Release. 17 Feb. 2005. Taser

International. 8 March 2005 ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=676162&highlight=>.

Hamilton, Anita. “Stun Guns For Everyone: Are tasers the ultimate in self-defense or tools of torture? A new model for consumers sparks debate.” Time 4 Feb. 2002: 50. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 3 Feb. 2005.

“Hospital criticized for stun gun use.” UPI NewsTrack 5 June 2004: p.NA. Expanded

Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 Feb. 2005.

“Injury Reduction.” Statistics. 2004. Taser International. 11 March 2005

<http://www.taser.com/documents/injury_reduction.ppt>.

“Intoxicated Domestic Dispute Suspect Attempts to Assult Deputy.” Actual Use Videos.

2004. Taser International. 11 March 2005

<http://www.taser.com/law/videos11.htm>.

Jones, Charisse. “Police say Taser shocks are replacing deadly shots.” USA Today 14

July 2004: News, 02a. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.

Kershaw Sarah. “As Shocks Replace Police Bullets, Deaths Drop but Questions Arise.” New York Times 7 March 2004: A1+.

Kohn, Carol, and C. W. Henderson. “Los Angeles hospital bans police stun gun use on patients.” Managed Care Weekly Digest. 12 July 2004: 80. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition. EBSCOhost. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.

“Korean Air granted permission to carry Taser stun guns on US flights.” Airline Industry Information 9 Nov. 2004: p. NA. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac.

Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 Feb. 2005.

“Law Enforcement Agencies Embrace Taser Guns.” News. 20 Oct. 2004. WHIO. 8

March 2005 .

“Lawyers warn against Taser guns.” Media releases. 12 Nov. 2004. Law

Institute of Victoria. 8 March 2005 <http://www.liv.asn.au/media/releases/20041112_taser.html>.

“Madison Police Department Issues Report On Benefits of TASER(TM) Technology.”

News Release. 22 Feb. 2005. Taser International. 8 March 2005

newsArticle&ID=677206&highlight=>.

Martinez, Michael. “Taser aims at home market as safety concerns mount.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service 17 Feb. 2005: K3053. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.

“Milestones in Police Use of Electro-Shock Guns.” Issues and Controversies 26 March

2004. FACTS.com. Facts On File News Services. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 March 2005.

“Police chief outlines use of Tasers.” UPI NewsTrack 8 Dec. 2004: p.NA. Expanded

Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 Feb. 2005.

“Police in England, Wales are allowed to use electric stun guns.” Xinhua News Agency

15 Sept. 2004: p.NA. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 Feb. 2005.

“Police officers to carry Tasers in schools.” UPI NewsTrack 7 Jan. 2005: p.NA. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 Feb. 2005.

Police Torture Children With TASER Guns. 15 Nov. 2004. Talk About Network. 8 March 2005

1984840.html>.

“Police Use of Electro-Shock Guns.” Issues and Controversies 26 March 2004. FACTS.com. Facts On File News Services. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 March 2005.

“Safety proof of 'non-lethal' Tasers questioned.” Applied Clinical Trials 13.8 (August 2004): 50. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 Feb. 2005.

Saving Lives: Testimonials. 2004. Taser International. 8 March 2005 <http://www.taser.com/facts/testimonials.htm>.

“Sharper Image may sell Taser stun guns.” UPI NewsTrack 19 July 2004: p.NA.

Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 3 Feb. 2005.

“Some U.S. Airlines Seek to Arm Pilots with Taser Energy Weapons.” Issues and

Controversies 26 March 2004. FACTS.com Facts On File News Services. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 March 2005.

“TASER International Disputes Media Link to Heart Damage.” News Release. 11 Feb.

2005. Taser International. 8 March 2005 ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=673548&highlight=>.

“TASER M26 Preventing Suicides.” Actual Use Videos. 2004. Taser International. 11

March 2005 >.

“Taser Saves Lives Every Day.” Corporate History. 2004. Taser International. 11 March 2005 <http://www.taser.com/about/history.htm>.

“Tasers can be useful.” Our View. 17 Feb. 2005/ 4 March 2005. Heraldonline. 17 Feb.

2005 < http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/story/4606650p-4280722c.html>.

“Tempe council votes approval to equip school safety officers with Taser stun guns.”

Education Daily 37.237 (20 Dec. 2004): 4. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 3 Feb. 2005.

Uchitelle, Louis. “Taser Shares Rise on News of Safety Study.” New York Times

14 Jan. 2005: C3.

“United pilots begin Taser training.” United Press International 27 Feb. 2002: p1008058w6125. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 8 Feb. 2005.

“Verdict due on taser guns.” Europe Intelligence Wire 10 May 2004: p.NA. InfoTrac OneFile. InfoTrac. Clemson University Libraries, Clemson, SC. 23 Feb. 2005.