Rough Reflection on Final Portfolio

This portfolio was put together to highlight several areas that I feel are very strong in my writing. Each piece shows a different aspect of writing style, and together they give a pretty good picture of my overall writing skills.

The collaborative project highlights my versatility as a writer. It begins with an essay written by me that serves as an argumentative piece setting up the argument for the whole project. In this piece I use research by Jonah Lehrer in the book “How we decide” to create an argument for religion being inseparable from our decisions, and by extension politics. I'm very proud of this piece- I think that the use of scientific research about how we actually make decisions lends a lot of strength to our overall argument. It makes the argument not about how people are biased, but about solid facts about how people's brains actually work, a much harder position to attack.

The second part of the collaborative project that I wrote is a satirical list of 10 more commandments, highlighting the areas where religion affects politics. I think that satire is probably my strongest genre- this piece goes a long way in making the audience really think about our argument. The last part that I did was a political cartoon; this again falls into the genre of satire, and again uses humor to pull the audience into our argument.

The next project in my portfolio is a rewrite of RP3. My original RP3 was not a very strong argument. It used some research to make the point that manned spaceflight is a goal that we need to pursue as a nation. The problem was, I focused on the broad issues, but not the issues that matter to most people, and as a result it wasn't very persuasive. In the rewrite, I brought themes from my RP4 to the piece, focusing on issues that have a more direct effect on the readers, such as budget and jobs provided. This resulted in the piece becoming much more effective for the intended audience.

I have not yet chosen the blog posts that I am going to use, but I plan on choosing those that highlight more of my strengths.

Reflective Essay

Throughout the semester, I have been working on the many different genres of this class. Some were genres that I was used to writing, like the persuasive paper. Others, like the Pecha Kucha, were very new to me. The fact that these had their different challenges made the class very enjoyable, and very interesting. I wanted my portfolio to really show how my personality came through in each of the different pieces, and I really feel like I was able to do that.
My first piece took a look at how our freedom of speech was being minimized by many different areas of our world. This piece showed a very personal side of me, and it really showed my views on the freedom of speech. This was probably more of the easier pieces to write because it required very little research and really allowed me to express my opinion. Though this was a shorter paper, it gave me a chance to do what I was really good at. This compared to something like the academic essay (RP3) was very easy.
RP2 was a fairly interesting paper to write. It was a mix of both research and argument, and though it took some time to research, it still allowed me to use my “campaign ad” style of writing. I have always been better at writing papers and stories that were very uplifting and when writing about government, patriotic. This stems from my experience working in the State Capital and on multiple campaigns. It is noticeable in my later pieces that I have a very commercial-like writing. Though this is great for writing a 30-second TV spot for a political candidate, it does not work to well in an academic essay.
When writing RP3, I had a little bit of trouble coming up with a good academic feeling to it. I have never had to write in that style. So, the approach I took was to look at it as an informative essay, and then allow the research to be the persuasive part. When looking back on this paper to re-write it, I realized that I had a very uplifting style. This is not what I was trying to do, but it just turned into that kind of paper. When I rewrote the paper, I made sure make it much more academic. I added a little more of the research to make my paper very academic, and I also took away of the patriotic tone.
The Pecha Kucha was probably the strangest assignment that I have ever done in college. Though it was very different than my other projects, it was pretty fun. I felt like I was able to allow myself to come through in the presentation. It was a mixture of both academia and that patriotic style that I enjoy. At first I felt like this project was going to be very difficult because it was so new to me, but upon creating the Pecha Kucha, I felt it was a good way to approach the RP3. Instead of the reader having to guess what I was meaning, they can hear and see what I was trying to say. Overall, this was the project that allowed me to express everything that I wanted to.
On a whole, my portfolio will really give an example of what I am as a person. There are both academic portions, and the reader can see who I am as a person. My hope is that everyone who looks at my project will be able to understand why free speech is so important to me, and also understand who I am as a person. I am very proud of the way my portfolio came together, and I hope my readers get as excited about free speech as I am!

Short, Reflective Essay

This portfolio reflects a range of rhetorical strategies, each specifically responding to a particular exigence and each tailored to the audience, expectations, and genre for that audience. Every rhetorical situation carries its own set of constraints; in this portfolio I have strategically paired different types of writing with different audiences. The subject of all these different approaches is predominantly free speech issues on liberal arts campuses—the blog posts are the only exception, but I have learned about the relationship between genre and audience though them. I have explored what genre is through blogs, tried out several different genres for different rhetorical situations through projects, and matched genres to specific audiences in my essays.

In my final project I experimented with different genres and defined what genre means when considering rhetorical strategies. Writing a multi-genre essay inherently means assembling different types of information together to create a cohesive whole that reaches a specific audience. I wrote my essay to be accessible, and true, examples of the ways activism on campus ironically produces widespread student apathy. An academic article, for example, adds reputable authority to my claim that student activism is ineffective and therefore unproductive at inspiring apathetic youth to take interest. Pictures of a protest, however, let the reader experience the noise and colors of free speech that UW students daily wade through. Though both genres are simple enough to be understood quickly, they approach the same audience with different motives: the article draws a logical connection between over stimulation and desensitization, whereas the pictures provide a frame for the reader to understand the emotional discrepancy between activist students and passive bystanders.

In my RP3 project, I wrote with a formal voice to a specific audience: readers of an academic journal. Everything changes from my lexicon, to statistics, to examples and anecdotes, and length because of the change in audience. Rather than writing to a general, averagely educated audience, I wrote to a highly educated audience in a scholarly environment. The constraints of this audience include assumptions that this audience will readily understand complex ideas, will not need to be told through stories or pictures, and will have a longer attention span. Though I used real examples again, they were employed to place the issue of collegiate free speech into historical context—rather than entertain the reader. I have tailored the academic essay to reach an academic audience who is interested in more complicated ideas and deciphering national trends.

Blog posts provide an unrestricted forum in which to experiment with genre and try to define what it is (or is not). For instance, in “Genre is the Mother of all Rhetoric,” I first try to understand how an exigence elicits a particular audience, which in turn elicits a particular set of restrains to effectively write within. Understanding how audience and setting changes style is crucial: a presidential speech is may not be effective as an advertisement, a student protest may not effective as a research article. Similarly, in “The Proposal” I lay out the constraints of writing to an academic audience and explore what kinds of writing would be appropriate and successful. Likewise, “Multiple Genres” and “Carbone and Sista Tongue” are examinations of what genre is, how it works, and how to pair a genre with an audience. I felt that Sista Tongue wrote to a more specific audience than “Carbone,” but I enjoyed the variety of genres “Carbone” presented. “Sista tongue” is more strictly informational, but “Carbone” is persuasive on a personal level because of its tragic narrative.

I have learned that, to be an effective writer or a persuasive voice, you must consider who will receive your message and write for that particular audience. This means balancing pathos, ethos, and logos in a way the audience can relate to, this means using images and language the audience can easily understand, and this means writing in a voice that your audience is interested in listening to. In this portfolio, I have attempted to manipulate my rhetorical style in multiple ways, to correspond to formal and informal audiences, and employed many different strategies to communicate a message.

Artist Statement

This multigenre essay examines the relationship between student activism and student apathy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison through current campus events, personal and professional surveys of student activity, and examples of student life. It is an essay documentary exploring the approach of centralized student action groups, and their counterpart, widespread student apathy. This essay challenges the public awareness approach that cause-oriented organizations take, and it investigates the intentional blind eye that students turn toward social and political expressions.

UW-Madison students are daily bombarded by the messages of committees, organizations, and affiliations exercising their right to free speech, but at what point do these authentic causes lose urgency due to students’ growing apathy toward all of the noise of a liberal arts campus? The public hyperactivism creates some fervor, some followers, and some awareness, but there is another large group of students who become immune to the voices and apathetic toward the causes. This is problematic because the more we are inundated with urgent, dramatic problems, the more we become desensitized to legitimate issues in our country and cease to be a progressive community.

There is a plethora of evidence supporting the existence of activism on campus; there is a collaborative for almost any assembly, minority, or problem in America—and many supporting global issues. The problem is not in opportunity or accessibility of social or political need either: the fruitlessness of activists on campus derives from the multitude of messages, all presented in nearly the same fashion, that hit young adults like advertising campaigns. A few go out and buy into the product, and the rest remain skeptical and unaffected. When social problems are emphasized as products, with corporate backing and banners and finances, it is unsurprising that students tighten the purse strings and feel unsympathetic.

This essay is a response to the springtime explosion of booths, banners, demonstrations, and giveaways that pop up after winter has boxed many them from library mall. Fall and spring are the prime times to catch students and offer them free food, drinks, tote bags, stickers, and swag in return for a couple of bucks, a signature, or some ‘raised awareness.’ Students find themselves forced into this rhetorical situation daily, often feeling the pressure and guilt of organizations trying to enlighten them through their right to free speech.

I chose an assembly of protest photos and a personal narrative/handouts to elucidate the social dilemma that students are physically faced with day to day. True examples more succinctly communicate how ubiquitous these messages and .org groups are and put the reader in an empathetic frame of mind. They also explore both sides of the rhetoric war—those students fervently fighting for causes and those passively passing them up, either impervious to the various exigencies or annoyed by their persistent nature. These true, very recent examples show, rather than tell, how widespread and varying activism is. Simultaneously, they compare how similar each organization’s approach to communication and fundraising is. In fact, at first glance most seem almost identical except for the different colors of paper used to catch the eye.

The two news articles, one local and one national, are logical appeals to the ethics of activism, and each demonstrates the irony of campus activists. First, in the local article about the Holocaust controversy in The Badger Herald (“The University of Wisconsin’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1969”), over a hundred students exercise their right of free speech—by publicly protesting—in order to limit the free speech of someone else—another group’s freedom of the press. It is ironic that one particular attitude is demonstrating to stop another attitude’s demonstrations. It is a case where free speech is exercised in order to stop free speech. The second article, which examines a U.C.L.A. study of student apathy in the United States, argues that students are no more apathetic today than in the Sixties. However, it ironically ends by conceding that student activism is spread thin, non-collaborative, and generally too small to make quantitatively significant changes. Though its purpose is to persuade readers that students do, actively want to make the world a better place, it concludes by recognizing that individual, issue-specific groups are achieving little real progress.

The tragic irony of activism is that, while it succeeds in making copies and putting up tables year after year, together all of these different movements contribute to general campus apathy toward social and political issues. Students walk past the conglomeration of signs and flyers without stopping to read even one. If they happen to catch a message on a sidewalk they do not pause to remember it or write it down. Maybe they will listen if they are given something free, and in return they give their attention and awareness, for free. But how effective is this exchange at solving problems, changing lives, or teaching students about problems in the world? I cannot help but suspect all this fundraising is spent to perpetuate fundraising. I cannot help but sympathize with students who feel that their dollar is just another tiny part of a budget devoted to poster printing and an exaggerated belief in the power of awareness. If we were aware, they suppose we would do something. But maybe we are aware, and just don’t care to contribute.

Reflection on the Multi-Genre Project

This multi-genre presentation is an excellent study in how different genres can create different effects on the reader. Using multiples genres allows the creator to create multiple effects for the reader, enhancing the overall argument. This means that we could use emotional appeals, with genres like the news articles and political ad, alongside pieces like the initial essay, which are meant to inform the reader in a logical and straight forward manner.
Several of the genres in our project help to give the feeling of timeliness. The news articles and political ads all focus on the recent 2008 Presidential Campaign, highlighting the issues that our project addresses in light of these current events. This shows how the issues are relevant to readers today, not just as some vague abstract idea about politics. I think that this is an important point; it brings the argument home for the reader, and shows them how the argument is relevant to them personally.
The emotional appeal in our paper comes largely from the satire, political cartoon, and political ad. The satire uses humor to open the audience up to the ideas presented in the piece. Humor serves to cause the reader to let down their guard, and makes them more receptive to the new ideas. The political cartoon uses humor for a similar effect, in this case reinforcing the arguments that have already been given. It is also used to break up the more lengthy genres, and give the reader a reprieve from simply reading text. The political ad appeals to the readers emotions by showing the sort of subtle hints that are used in real political ads. It is meant to give an example of just how politicians use the religious tendencies within the voters to manipulate their opinions.
The more logical appeals are realized primarily in the main essay and the op-en piece. The main essay sets up the argument, giving scientific evidence and research supporting the fact that religion is integral to our decision making. This makes the reader think about the topic logically. The op-ed piece does a very similar thing with respect to the topic of political campaigns; it presents a more logical argument about the necessity of being Christian to being elected president. This works well in tandem with the political ad; the op-ed piece gets the reader thinking about it logically, and then the political ad gets their emotional side involved in the process. This duality is very effective in pulling in the reader and getting their whole thought process involved in the argument.

Multi Genre Reflection

Our project really aims to allow people to think for themselves. We are approaching an argument that will be praised on some sides and attacked on the other, whereas, some people may just be indifferent. Our goal is to make sure that people are thinking, not just for themselves, but about themselves. We have found that religion is an overarching area that people use to make so many decisions in there life. This is a good thing, however we need to make sure that people are not just using religion to make those decisions. This should go for all experiences and beliefs in life as well. People should use their beliefs and experiences as a whole to make decisions. If religion is one of those things, it should be included, but it should not be the sole deciding factor.

It is my hope that our project will make people think about everything as a whole, as opposed to just using one aspect of their life. All of our different genres attempt to do this. We use emotional connections, satire, and basic news to help show voters how these ideals affect their lives. I think that this will allow for our readers to be involved in the project, but not get bored. All of the different genres bring new things to the table. Our main essay introduces the topic and the basic argument, while our op-ed piece gives a much more opinionated approach.

My favorite portion of the project is the use of satire. Our "Lost Commandments" and political cartoon show an extreme example of how people use religion in our country. Though I do believe that religion is very important and we need to keep from imposing our beliefs on those who do not want them. It is my hope that we can bring those who want to involve religion and don't want to involve religion together. After going through our project, I believe that our readers will understand the reasons on why we need to use all of our experiences to make decisions.

Blog Post 8 - Multi Genre Example

Sept. 23, 2008 - Chicago, IL – Almost one month after the Democratic National Convention, rumors have sprouted up, again, about the religion of the Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama. Since last January there have been reports that Obama is not a US citizen. Though no birth certificate has been provided, the campaign insists that Obama is a United States Citizen. This story has died off in late due to an uprising of reports that Obama is of Muslim heritage and descent. Obama’s father, a Kenyan citizen, gave his son the name Barack Hussein Obama, and this sparked the idea that Obama, in fact, is not Christian.

The Obama campaign was quick to set the record straight when asked at one of their campaign stops. Obama said, “I've been to the same church, the same Christian church, for almost 20 years.” When speaking to donors at the up scale downtown Chicago restaurant, Gibson’s, he made sure to put an emphasis on the word Christian. Not only has this story brought down Obama’s polling in many states, it has taken over the media. At every small town campaign stop, both the media outlets and voters are questioning Obama’s religion.

When speaking with voters, there is an overwhelming feeling that Obama has not been telling the whole truth about his religion. Martha Crosby, a 56 year old resident of Adams Mills, OH, explained how she was worried that if Obama was lying about his religion, she wanted to know, “What else is he hiding?” The other portion of Obama’s religion that is worrying voters, is the influence of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Even though Obama is claiming to be Christian, voters are wondering if he is in line with the rest of America.

David Rockstead, a member of the St. Peter Lutheran Church in Fort Meyers Beach, FL, does not believe that Senator Obama has his best interests in mind. “Every time I hear Mr. Wright speak, it seems like he hates America. That is not someone I want to advise the President,” said David.

We went around to many different cities and asked everyday Americans what they thought of Obama’s religion. Some were supportive of Obama, and spoke to the fact that he was still Christian and that is what mattered. Whereas, many were upset that they could not be positive what religion Obama was, and that they told us that they needed a President who had the same moral and values as they did.
This will continue to play out between now and the election.
The Fox News team will continue to follow this important story as it develops and keep you updated on every breaking news story from the campaign.

The Lost Commandments

Thou shalt trust in me for all your monetary security.

Thou shalt always include my name when pledging yourself to your country.

Thou shalt ask for my help when swearing to the truth.

Thou shalt perform said swearing with one hand resting upon my holy book, or suffer thyself to be unbelieved.

Thou shalt include my name in as many speeches as possible, for this is how to stir the masses.

Thou shalt always profess thy belief in me, or suffer thyself to lose an election.

Thou shalt accept endorsements from my holy men, no matter how crooked or extreme they might seem.

Thou shalt know that I am always at thy side, even when thine enemy professes me to be at theirs.

Thou shalt always consult my holy book when deliberating over controversial matters, as it shall show you the truthful path.

Thou shalt ensure proper credit is given to me in all interviews about thy successes, and all failures shall be properly attributed to failures of thine self.

Trying Out Some Genres

I pledge allegiance to the flag

of the United States of America,

and the to the Republic,

for which it stands,

one nation

under God

indivisible

with liberty

and justice

for all.



I pledge allegiance to a country,

called the United states of America,

and to it’s values,

on which it stands,

one nation

under government

I n d I v I s I b l e

with freedoms

and justice

for all.


To Whom It May Concern:
As the pastor of an evangelical free church, I am well versed in both the scriptural instructions on choosing leadership in government and acquainted with the current candidates at hand. Though a man’s character may be manipulated and misrepresented through media, I have to believe Jesus that “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matthew 7:17). I will vote for the candidate who best exemplifies and suggests a philosophy that will bear good fruit for the nation.
Many people accuse the Christian churches for their conservative natures; this is a generalization based on a true observation. The Christian church has historically always encountered surrounding government; sometimes ruling nations through Kings, sometimes being persecuted for radical thought, at times being misused to control others, sometimes bringing war and other times prosperity. But even in this country, before leftwing-rightwing political dogmas existed, the church was part of the governmental foundation for the free republic. Now that freedom wants to strip Christianity from history as if it never existed, as if it wasn’t the philosophy behind the Bill of Rights.
Have we forgotten the cities on the hills? Do we no longer care about the religious freedoms of our forefathers, the people who set us up to be a world superpower? Are we willing to blame Christianity, a religion which preaches generosity and love, for interfering with our democracy? “Do we, then, nullify the law by this [Christian] faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” –Romans 3:31
I suggest to you that Christian men and women do not harm the political system; Christian thought is not incompatible with justice. There are places where general moral consciousness and common ethical ideology overlap. The frenzy in pulling Christianity from government is like trying to pull a rope’s strands from each other; America was built on God, by men, for equality. All three are inextricably part of our nation’s history. What we do from now on is our generation’s decision, but changing the past is as futile as it is ignorant of our heritage.

Collaborative Project Ideas

Thesis

There is an unavoidable effect exerted on Government and Politics in America, whether or not the government claims to have a separation between church and state.

Options - focus on the 2008 campaign, showing how much effect religion had
- Show that religion has an effect on politics no matter what we do, and we can never exorcise it completely.

Audience

Voters in general- we are trying to show people that religion does indeed have an effect on politics, so that they can think about the issue and make better informed decisions.

Possible Genres
-Satire
-Magazine Article (i.e. part of the Christian Science Moniker)
-News stories (FOX News, MSNBC, etc)
-Political Cartoon
-Political Ads (poster, etc.)

Carbone & Sista Tongue

1. The Carbone essay seemed to be an insightful, realistic demonstration of how Alzheimer’s disease tangles both a brain and a family. Its argument was to explain the disease to those unfamiliar with it and inspire readers to become knowledgeable and empathetic with its victims. Its genres were simple, conspicuous, and short. It was definitely written to grab your attention and keep it page after page, rather than overwhelming you with long explanations or research. The short pages with pictures keeps it intentional, up front, and concise. The poems and letters and family photos make it personal. “Sista Tongue” was also informational, but a little more formal, and written both as personal accounts of accents/language issues and professional accounts of the history and status of things like bilingualism, dialect, Pidgin, and creole. Ultimately the essay argues that these "substandard" forms of English deserve more credit, tolerance, and respect in the standard English language. The effective part is the switch between, or in some cases the juxtaposition together, of official medical/science-type facts and dialogue, real examples of language, stories, etc.


2. The most effective pages in Carbone are the final ones—the final ends to long series of the same genre that builds up to a conclusion (the outline of a head without any pictures in it especially). These pages are important because we see the end of the progression that had previously been occurring in the essay, but they are a warning and a destination for the reader. For “Sista Tongue” I think the pages that have both the small, formal text and the big, wild-looking monologues are the most effective because I can compare the idea with an example simultaneously.

3. In Carbone the organization is the key to understanding the essay: it’s not a random conglomeration of tid bits about Alzheimer’s disease—it’s a carefully laid out progression of personal and professional encounters with victims and victim’s families. This format effectively brought in a lot of personal, informal information with some more factual, scientific information (not much, but a balance nonetheless). “Sista Tongue” is also a highly organized piece, but it’s more universally the same rather than having separate, continuous strands running throughout it. Though some pages are more about story and some about an experiment, for example, the same continuous balance between the formal analysis and informal demonstration is on almost every page (or every other). This format allowed the subject of the essay to be physically mirrored by the construction of the text, which adds an extra dimension to the argument as well as an interesting set-up for the reader.

4. Carbone has several very effective repretends—the brain outline filled with pictures, mind puzzles, poetry, family letters, and information from the medical world regarding the disease. These continuous runnings add a lot of emphasis and unity to the essay as a whole, and as each one layers on each other you get an organized, abstract idea instead of a bunch of random thoughts. “Sista Tongue” has two very important repetends—the small, boxed professional text and the quotations. There are also instances of stories, facts, historical documentation, and personal encounters but these two main figures seem to fight throughout the whole essay. They’re crucial to the essay because the contrast sets up and mirrors the exact argument of the essay, and they show the reader, not tell, how the spoken word can look and sound in different cultures.

5. I think the multigenre essay risks chaos. As an idea it practically begs to be overloaded and crowded with this and that and whatever else you can stuff in there that ‘fits.’ That’s what the monkey thing was. As both essays showed, it also has the potential to be very creative and artistic, unique to the writer and expressive of a personal theme. Though the “Sista Tongue” essay looks very hectic and scrambled, it is actually specifically made that way, I think, to better exemplify the random, chaotic message of language. It was also more finished than the pieces we looked at in class. It seems that multigenre writing has very few limits, and a lot of pitfalls. “Sista Tongue,” for example, got hard to read because of all the different directions and sizes of the text. My eye didn’t always know where to go. I think getting too abstract can suggest disorganization or difficulty for the reader, and I don’t think multigenre essays are supposed to be difficult. I think the point of using a lot of material and cutting it short is to hold their attention and make brief, sharp points rather than explain a lot. But too little explanation leaves fifty pages of random chunks of text for someone to read.

Carbone

The multigenre piece carbone seems to be mainly created to try to give the reader a feeling about what it's like to live with Alzheimer's. Instead of listing off facts and figures about the disease, it tries to give people the feeling of what it's really like to have, or to live with someone who has it; through a series of short blips, the reader is exposed to many of the difficult problems facing a family dealing with Alzheimer's. The audience is people like you and me, people that don't know much about the disease and have no idea what it's really like to deal with.

I think that in this piece it's the way all the genres are put together that's so effective. The blips of story are a great way to reach out to the reader. You start reading one of the stories, and it seems like a regular bit about a family; then you're hit with yet another example of how Alzheimer's affects people's lives. Then there's a break between stories, filled up with a poem or crossword puzzle or the like, followed by another story that hits you in the same way. It really is a great way to suck the reader into the world of Alzheimer's. There's a story to give you a jolt, then another piece to distract you away from the first story, then another story to give you a jolt again now that you've forgotten the feeling from the last one.

One issue that I have with the piece is that it's very long. I like how repetitive it is; making the same point over and over is very effective in this particular argument, as it really hammers the ideas home to the audience. However, by about halfway through the piece, I feel as though the point has already been made. The rest seems really like overkill, and tends to bore the reader and cause them to lose interest instead of adding to the argument at all.

Overall, the piece is very well done. The use of different genres and repetition is very effective, it just goes on for a bit too long.

Sista Tongue - Review

This collaboration seems to focus mainly on language, and how it is different among different cultures of people. It seems like they try to show how many different people are using English, and how it can always sound very different. The purpose, as far as I can tell, is to inform the public on the differences in the English language. If you are from a Hawaiian dissent, you will speak differently than someone from the inner city of Chicago, who will speak differently than someone from upstate New York. There are many different way to use language, and while talking about it in this piece, it even uses different genres to use those different types of speech. The main audiences seems to be almost everyone, but could be focused on people interested in communication or speech.

I thought that each different genre promoted a different idea, but I felt like the first one seemed to be the most out there. I liked that it used a different form of English, but I did not like the way it was set up. The way in which some words were bigger, and how at some points there were random statements. It seemed very bumpy, and not to the point. I feel if they were able to arrange it a little better, it would have added more to the piece.

I don't know if I really gained or lost anything after reading this. The different genres were interesting, but again, sometimes hard to follow. I think that is mostly do to the arrangement. I wish they would have been able to make the first genre more clear (maybe the point was to be unclear?).

The piece really created a repeating atmosphere. On one part, due to the subject, but also going back and forth between the genres and way in which they were presented on the page made it flow much better.

I feel that this one was meant to be more polished, but it came off as messy and unclear. That is just my opinion, and again, I think it is just the fact that I did not like the arrangement of some of the writing. On a whole though, the piece did a good job of creating a multi-genre paper, while still connecting all of the pieces in an interesting fashion.

RP 4 Ideas (Option 2)

For this presentation, the audience is really anyone who's interested in the space program. Really it's hard to reach out and get the presentation seen by the space program's opponents; people who are against it most likely aren't going to be reading websites that the presentation might be posted on. The goal, then, is to educate those that are curious about the topic, and give them ideas and information to make the arguments themselves when they're confronted by opposition. I'd post it on scientific websites and those dedicated to Space (Ad Astra magazine, National Space Society, etc.).

As for changing the argument from the written form to that of the pecha kucha, I think that the argument will transfer well, but will end up being presented very differently. The introduction will be some inspiring pictures, perhaps of astronauts on the moon, or space shuttles lifting off, that sort of thing. Over these will be a mashup of sound bytes, some from popular sci-fi (Captain Picard saying “Space: the final Frontier...”, etc.) and some from history (“One small step for man...”, some from President Kennedy talking about the space race, etc.). These will do a great job of setting the tone for the piece, and getting the audience excited about space. From here, the presentation will launch into the argument itself. I don't think I'm going to use any music; I believe it would just distract from the argument itself. Or, I might fade the music, louder during the intro, and jut very quiet in the background during the important argument points. The audio would be primarily me speaking.

For the pictures during the argument itself, I think I'm going to have a variety. Some will be pictures of Astronauts doing their usual thing, some might be drawings of what it might be like in a colony on Mars, things like that. I'll also have one or two charts in there- perhaps showing a breakdown of government spending to show how little the NASA budget actually takes up, things like that.

Overall, I think that the argument will transfer well, but will definitely change. Instead of being a research piece, it will be more of an audio essay; instead of making the argument to the opponents of the space program, it will focus more on outlining the argument to give those that are pro-manned exploration a better idea of how to argue for it themselves.

RP4

Through my paper, I did touch a little on the academic area, but I would like to broaden my paper to everyone now. It will allow me to advance my argument even more. I think to reach a larger audience, I could use sites like youtube and any other social networking site.

I will have to change my argument slightly to be able to use the visual and audible aids, but I feel like it will be fairly easy to do. The main focus of my argument will surround the first amendment, so I would like to find ways in which I can incorporate that into the entire argument. Hopefully my speech will be able to blend everything together. It my hope to not sound choppy.

I think the fact that I cannot site many of my sources, it will make it more difficult to show that I am actually using factual information and not my own opinion, but depending on how I am able to present it, I may be able to use some sources.

As far as making my argument better through audio, I feel that I will be able to do that with my voice. It is always good when the author of a book reads it because then you get the exact intent of how they thought about it. When I read the basis of my paper, it will come off exactly how I felt when I wrote it. This will allow listeners to become more engaged and understand exactly what I was going for. So, through voice and rhetoric, I will be able to keep my listener involved.

Part 2 (RP4 Outline)

Slide 9: The PodeumOn campus, a lot of free speech happens in library mall. Bikers, donations, sex education, political controversy, and especially religious application.

Slide 10: The Sandwich BoardFrom this point I'll go on to talk about the specific religious preacher at library mall who frequently condemns us to hell and starts arguments with students. I'll also raise a few "should" questions to get my audience, which is UW-Madison students, to think about their own rights and beliefs regarding free speech.

Slide 11: Bong Hits for Jesus
This slide will widen the discussion up toward free speech more generally again, talking about instances where school has tried to reach past school ground to limit student's rights. This will tie back into the beginning fraternity story, where the boundary will be questioned where school authority begins and ends.

Slide 12: A Student Protest in a public domain
This slide will show that students are civilians as well, and the same policies should be applied to both. It will reference the FSM again, where it was decided that schools should be governed as public places as far as student rights go, which will lead into a further discussion of school free speech codes and political correctness.

Part 1 (RP4 Outline)

I am doing my pecha kucha presentation about free speech rights on liberal college campuses with a specific emphasis on UW-Madison past and current free speech issues.
Slide 1: A Pile of Letters
For this slide I will introduce my presentation's thesis, talking about the some of the general free speech-type issues on campuses and in Wisconsin. I'll emphasize the themes of religion and politics as big issues for free speech conflicts.

Slide 2: The Blackface
This slide will introduce the specific event of a fraternity racist party as the portal for UW-Madison's current free speech debates (which are predominantly about politically correct speech). After this event the school has gone back and forth between free speech and speech codes, making laws and going to court but never resolving the issue.

Slide 3: (not pictured)
An old picture of two college students wearing baby diapers and bonnets protesting Act Up! which opposes a daycare that would not watch a child whose mother had HIV. This fun picture will introduce the history of free speech at Wisconsin--civil rights, policy, war, etc.
Slide 4: Teaching about Vietnam
Continuing with slide 3, this slide will go into some of the political history of free speech at Wisconsin. Professors gave public lectures about the war.

Slide 5: Mario Salvo
The man in this picture is credited with the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, CA. He started sit-ins and peaceful protests at the university which led to administrative policy changes about free speech of students, their treatment as citizens, and civil rights liberty.

Slide 6: (not pictured) Columbus Protest
This slide will bring the idea of political speech back to Madison with the native American protest of Columbus's discovery. I will move on past this description and talk about the greater argument of having your voice heard on campus.

Slide 7: Piccolo Pete
For example, even Piccolo Pete is spreading a message freely on campus, though his message is music. There are no policies against free speech on campus, right? Probably will need a better argument here, but I want to talk about the genres of free speech.

Slide 8: Grafiti
For example, even just grafiti is a message in the public realm, in the campus space.

Pecha Kucha for Haiti

http://www.pecha-kucha.org/presentations/83

This Pecha Kucha was created to inform the audience about Architecture for Humanity and what they stand for and do. The group is a non profit organization that does charitable work around the world. Their mission is twofold- their primary function is to build structures for communities that can't afford to themselves (this could be schools, medical centers, homes, etc), and their second is to show the locals how to create many of these things on their own. The presentation seems to have been created in response to questions about what the organization was planning to do in Haiti. It goes through an introduction of what they are and what they do, then a list of examples of projects they've already completed, and finally shows what they plan to do in Haiti in particular. Its audience seems to be those who are curious about Haiti relief efforts and are looking to find out more about what's going on and the organizations that are involved.

This presentation makes great use of the Pecha Kucha format. The goal of the slideshow is to show as much about the organization as possible in a short time, and Pecha Kucha's constantly changing slides accomplish this very well. The images are basically all pictures of previous Architecture for Humanity projects. This works well to show the viewer a wide range of buildings that the organization has already completed. This serves to give credibility; the viewer sees that this isn't just one guy talking about his grand plans for charity, but that it's a group that already has numerous accomplishments under their belts. The narration then gives the actual information- what the organization is, what they do, and a little about the projects themselves. The speaker starts off a bit shaky- he seems like he is nervous about speaking, using lots of “um's” and “ah's,” but he gets his feet back under himself after the first few slides. Throughout the whole presentation, he does speak extremely fast- this is probably an artifact of the Pecha Kucha system, since he has a limited time to get all the information in. Overall though, his presentation of the information is very effective, and he gets all of his points across without losing the interest of the viewers.

If I were to use this format, I think it would work well for my argument. The slides would give me a chance to add flavor and keep the audience interested, as well as allow me to put in relevant charts and graphs (useful for the section about budget). The narration would allow me to give my argument in a meaningful and convincing manner. The only place I'd really need to bend the rules is using some figures and graphs in the slides instead of just pictures.

Audio Essay

The podcast that I chose to use is a portion of Glenn Becks radio show. It is a description of how a Canadian could not get proper health care in Canada, so he had to come to America. It is shorter than what we will be doing, but it is close to what I would like to imitate. I believe that taking my paper and making it into a conservative radio show like audio essay, it will be easier to create a strong argument.

Here is the link:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/?uri=channels/338017/820629

Glenn uses a lot of different strategies within his speech. His voice will change tones, and has some very important pauses. It allows him to show the importance of somethings, and the less important parts of others. Those that listen to the radio show are more likely to agree with him, so he can introduce humor about those that disagree with him to bring the audience in even more.

I hope to be able to learn from this example. I know that I will not be able to utilize every strategy that Glenn Beck does, however, I may be able to incorporate his style to make my argument stronger. The strategies especially important will be knowing when to pause, and also what information to include, and what information to leave out.

Pecha Kucha Poetry

a. The Pecha Kucha presentation I enjoyed most was an artistic form/combination art and poetry. It has part photos of the poet and her life, and part video clips of things that make her think of something in particular (like her future when she's driving in a car at night). It's a 6:40 minute poem with twenty images, but instead of presenting a formal subject she uses it to recite her own poetry. Check it out Here!

b. This presentation uses an artistic form because it's delivering artistic content. In this case the form is actually an extension of content, and part of it. Someone would want an artistic form when their message appeals to an artistic subject or when their audience appreciates creative images/information. This form would not be good for an official or business presentation because it flows calmly, emotionally, and is meant to tell a story or give a performance rather than present a speech or an essay. The images were all in black and white, except for some of the movies, which made the presentation more dramatic and washed-out. The sound effects were limited to the poet's voice, which was helpful at focusing the observer without more distractions than the pictures. There is a smooth transition between slides--almost a fade out. That has a nice finished feel to it, and it makes the poem feel like one instead of 20 pieces.

c. If I converted my essay into this form I would have to bring out the ethos appeal more than the logos, which would be hard because my essay is all logos. But, this form was very effective at telling a dramatic story, which my essay has many of. I would follow the example of simple narration without additional sound effects, and I kind of liked the movies and black and white pictures.

Proposal

For this writing project, I'm going to be writing about the importance of manned space flight. This is a timely issue for the whole nation, as Obama just recently unveiled a plan changing NASA's budgetary focus away from manned space flight. In this piece I'll show how the topic is relevant to everyone, including undergraduate students here at UW-Madison.

To get this point across, I'm going to focus on several main aspects of the argument. First, the overarching reason for manned space flight, the one that trumps everything- survival. We've come very close to being wiped out as a race many times in the past, from disease, nuclear war, and the like, not to mention the possibility of everyone's favorite disaster movies coming true and the earth being smacked by a giant meteor. Human spaceflight will eventually lead to human colonies in space, creating redundancy for us as a race- if we have people living elsewhere besides Earth, we no longer have to worry about our whole legacy being wiped out in one untimely accident.

Second, I'll focus on timeliness. Getting a head start as soon as possible is key. Manned spaceflight is really still in its infancy, and the resources and technology required to allow us to start setting up colonies elsewhere simply take a long time to develop. If we wait until it's needed, it will simply be too late. We have to get things moving now, so that when the time comes we aren't saying “You know, I wish we'd gone along with that whole colony on the moon idea” right before all the nukes hit and send us back to the stone ages. It's like a 401k plan; if you don't start investing in it early, by the time you actually need it it's too late.

With those to big ideas out of the way, I'll focus on issues a little closer to home, and show why it matters to UW-Madison students in particular, apart from the whole survival of the human race bit. Specifically, I'll focus on the economic side of things. For one, we're currently in a recession. The US is the biggest world power right now, and the quality of life here shows it. What happens when other nations start to pull ahead of us in the space race? Suddenly someone like China will be seen as the nation at the forefront. Companies will start moving investments there, and we'll lose our spot at the top. Second, madison is a very progressive city, and people are always worrying about “going green” and starving overpopulated masses. What better way is there to save the environment from the strain of overpopulation than to start spreading out and leaving Earth? Yes, it's a long way off, but eventually we'll have habitable colonies on the moon, mars, and who knows where else. Colonies that can help relieve the pressure from all the overpopulated areas.

For sources, I'll probably use mainly news articles about the space program (as well as overpopulation and pollution issues for the last part), with possibly some history books for background on the space program so far.

I think that this piece will help people think about the issue in a different light. I want to point out some benefits of manned spaceflight in areas that most people have never really thought about before.

Option 2 - Proposal

Media is one of the largest influences on people today. What to wear, what to eat, what kind of car to drive, and yes, who we should elect into office. Every second of the day, there is someone in our media telling you how to live your lives, and reporting on how others are living theirs. The biggest effect of this is our opinionated news media: Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, etc., etc. All of these people have radio shows, television shows, articles, and books. So the real question is: Do they have an effect on how our country is run? The answer is yes. But the other question is: How much do they affect it?

Now, I do not want to focus on such a large scale like national politics. Let's focus on something smaller like state government. I want to find out how people like this affect how our state runs and who is elected. I also want to focus on if more money = more power. So, for my project I will look at how TV ads (from everyone) and media control or don't control congress.

I think this will be extremely relevant to current times because there is almost always an election going on, and Congress is in session a majority of the year. Also, after the last supreme court ruling, anyone can run TV ads, so if you have money, go for it!

I will do 3 different kinds of research. 1) I will search in academic journals about politics and media, 2) I will talk with people about how they view the media and political commercials, and 3) I will do research at my internship with a State Senator to see how our constituents react to certain things.

So far, I have found that there is a large effect on people from media. We get more phone calls in the office when there is a big event going on, and we get even more petitions and calls when someone goes on TV and tells our constituents to do something. So, I feel like I will be able to find out how much of effect our media has on everyday politics.

The Proposal

The Situation:
I am interested in exploring the history and current condition of government censorship, especially in relation to the first amendment and particularly regarding free speech (depending on where the evidence takes me). I want to compile evidence and make an argument about what condition our first amendment rights are in and what should be allowed or not allowed—or at least ask some questions about the philosophy of censorship. The idea of government censorship is relevant today especially because of pop culture and political happenings happening now—from the war in Iraq to the library mall preacher, to allowing porn on the UW Campus, to protests happening in front of the catholic church and Memorial Library. My focus will be on a bigger, more national level but the points will be broken down into palpable, applicable theories/proofs.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire

The Focus:
The meat of my paper will be looking through places where censorship worked, failed, should have been used, should not have been used, etc. and trying to quantify the evidence into some kind of conclusion about its effectiveness, or even whether it is necessary. Is censorship more helpful than hurtful? Who does it discriminate against? Who does it help? Are some people denied rights because of it? I can see running into the problems of defining a “right” of man, but I would like to avoid that kind of debate because it will be unproductive. What I want to focus on is the government’s responsibility/power to censor the public eye, and whether that power is appropriate, used well, or needed (ex: dirty pictures/porn, burning books/flags, politically correct speech, FDA having guns, indecent speech, anti-political/anti-American commentary, government news management).


Methods:
I think a combination of both a survey (conducted by me) and articles online would be effective. I like the idea of using online sources because they are the easiest to verify and the most up-to-date. But I want to avoid gathering a lot of information and spitting it out again in a new form. Some of that is bound to happen in a research paper, but hopefully if I conduct a survey and put it in my paper I can keep my focus straight and stay on track with what interests me about censorship. It also helps me feel responsible for the claim I’m making (instead of copying other people’s claims). It is obviously important to use credible sources and reliable experts, but the issue of government censorship is broad enough that even though a lot of people want to get their two cents in, the history of government action and political stances (professional findings, essentially) is very accessible and easy to weed out. My favorite resource so far is the International Society for Independent Freedom because they are fighting for the first amendment rights globally, which means they have a lot of evidences to prove the need (the site is mostly about America, the philosophy is more international). I am also very interested in the United States official positions on it, so for that I will rely on court cases to speak for the nation (Roth vs. United States, Alberts vs. California). The Supreme Court is going to be a great resource on finding out what the official position on censorship is. It is not as official, but the Berkeley law blog has some really interesting ideas with the trend of American’s freedoms and believe that they have been declining since 1964. I may include some things like that as well.


Possible implications:
My preliminary findings are that there are going to be multiple solid evidences for both sides, and that it could be more of a moral issue than a political or social one (should kids be allowed to see pornographic magazines in grocery stores? how much information should the government tell the American people and release to the press?), but I am going to try to steer it away from opinion if I can, or at least make claims that are concrete ideas to form opinions from. I hope it will, by the end, help my fellow undergrads think about what they really want to/should know because it’s “out there.” I hope that they learn some temperament, and concede that it takes a lot of discernment to figure out what they should and should not be exposed to, even in a democracy. Some things are just not healthy; some things are downright dangerous not to know. I hope they feel empowered to decide for themselves which they want, and to base that conclusion on information instead of opinion or definition (i.e. “liberalism”).

Over the past 7 years in Wisconsin government, there has been a skewed opinion. Not only has our current administration caused one of the highest debts in our state history, they have also managed to make our state the 3rd worst state to do business in. Now this is not to stay that it is all Jim Doyle's fault, but I have to say that a Governor of the state must take a lot of credit for it.

Jim Doyle announced last summer that he would not run for a third term in office. This probably has something to do with the fact that his approval ratings have dropped below 30%. The real situation I want to touch on, though, is the upcoming race for Governor. Tom Barret, the Mayor of Milwaukee, and Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County Executive, are the two front runners from the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively. Now, the race is going to be very important for our state because the winner will be able to shape the direction of our state. Another important piece of the election is going to be how the election will be run. The US Supreme Court found that having the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law was unconstitutional. Not only will this affect our nations elections and campaigns, it is going to also affect our state run campaigns.

Before McCain/Feingold, most campaign money came in as large donations from corporations and the extremely rich. Since it went into effect, however, many campaign contributions were from grassroots efforts. The current campaign within the Scott Walker group has raised a majority of its money with small donations. They have had over 18,000 people donate to the campaign. Everything is going to change now that corporations and any other rich company or non-profit can give as much money and say anything they want.

Many people will argue that this is going to ruin our election system and make it so whoever has the most money wins. I don't believe this is true, especially since both sides have multi-million dollar backers. I am glad that the supreme court has found McCain/Feingold unconstitutional, as you should, too. This will allow everyone to have a voice, just as our fore fathers had intended. Yes, there will be more ads on television now from private organizations, corporations, non-profits, and even religious groups. However, isn't it a good things to allow everyone to speak their mind in an open environment. By keeping people from saying what they want in elections, it only allows certain people to have their voice heard. Whether you are rich or you are poor, you have the same voice. Someone who is rich may be able to make a television ad that costs $10 million, but someone who is poor can go door to door in their neighborhood and give their opinion.

So, by allowing our campaigns to be more open, with less interference from the government, and more input from our citizens, we will be able to elect officials that are doing what we want them to. You may say that with these big interests spending all this money it is going to cause more politicians to "owe" their contributors, but I think that if there is someone else on the other side with the same amount of money ready to attack them for listening to the "big money interests," then there will be a lot less to worry about. Everyone will be held accountable for what they have done because they will have to answer to the other side even more than they have in the past. So, if you want truth and honesty in politics, and you want everyone's freedom of speech to be upheld, then join me in supporting the recent Supreme Court Case decision that repealed the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform.

Supreme our Ruling Threatens Democracy

“Ordinary Americans will be able to vote, but they will not be represented” --Miller

Senator Mark Miller hypothesizes the negative consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling this year that permits corporations to spend uncapped amounts on elections in an opinion piece from the Isthmus.

Senator Miller believes that money buys power, and monopolizing politics into the “megacorporate players” means “drowning out the will of the people,” which is his ethical appeal against this ruling. He believes it is unconstitutional to muffle out the voice of the citizens, which is what this ruling does; the voices that matter are the ones coming from corporate checkbooks, and the ruling broke 100 years of precedent keeping the people paramount in making political choices. “Bloodless corporations will not be able to vote,” Miller writes, “but they will most certainly be represented, at all levels of government.” It seems as though the act of voting itself will become an empty gesture.

Elections and political campaigns today are races to spread information to the voters, which is one of the reasons campaigns spend so much funding on telecommunications. The Supreme Court’s ruling “opens the floodgates for corporate political spending,” which Miller suggests was an inevitable outcome of the Bush administration. When corporations control the candidates, they can promote or prohibit political progress by sponsorship (or threat to cease sponsorship). Miller sees this as detrimental to the basic freedoms of a U.S. citizen.

He blames the Bush administration’s corporate-friendly attitude for “the Great Recession of 2008” and claims that Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies actually “drafted legislation for Congress to pass.” While Miller’s intent is to encourage voters to be wary of protecting their constitutional rights, he states his conclusions about the Bush legacy without any specificities. This makes his attack seem more like an elephant jab than substantial, irrevocable evidence for his case. A warning without proof is scary, maybe effective (like yelling ‘shark!’ at a beach), but not going to save anyone if it is not backed up factually.

Miller’s biggest fallacy is the contingent train of conclusions that begins reasonably and ends, well, who quite knows where: the Supreme Court now allows corporations to donate to elections unrestrictedly→these corporations will become bigger motivators for candidates than the citizen opinion→America will go into an economic recession→there is no check on the Supreme Court, which is out of balance and taking away our freedoms→the government will no longer belong to the people, and instead will become a corporate puppet. While it is one possible outcome for the ruling, it is a scare tactic to raise awareness and communicate a sense of communal outrage and camaraderie, not an appeal to logos.

“Let’s not revert…” Miller urges his audience. Let’s not, as if we are a collective democratic portrait of America. While his claim is effective in empowering the reader to be part of his protest, he assumes that his audience is on his side and is democratic. “As voters, we need to be very critical…we need to insist…we need to be very angry…” he says. He writes as if he—an elected official—is not part of the politics but part of the vulnerable citizens. It nearly seems deceitful for him to not admit his office or consider it with his argument.

In Interesting Link for Iran Freedom Issues

This is an article about Iran's people marking their 30-year anniversary for their national revolution from the shah. But it seems that their new government is just as forceful, perverse, and delusional as the last one. So, it has potential. A lot of people were abused in the attempt to quiet the protest. Check it out HERE.

What Genre fits you?

In a few situations in my life, I have found that the way in which you speak can do a lot or a little for you. The genre in which you choose to speak can completely change how you are going to say something. Do you want to be serious, satirical, poetic, or anything else. I agree that this limits the speaker a great deal.

How is a person supposed to speak at a formal engagement as opposed to a casual dinner with friends. You may not notice that you change your speech or tone, but it does happen to everyone. This is not always do to the fact that we want to change how we are perceived, but we do it unconsciously due to our audience.

An audience can change our genre a lot. Not only do we try to spin what we are trying to say to impress a certain audience, we are also making sure that we do not do anything inappropriate. Would it be appropriate for a Senator to give a speech on clean energy in the style of an Old English poem? Probably not. However, if he were giving a speech at the National Poet Society, they may get a kick out of it.

So, as you can tell, the genre you choose to speak in can be a huge determination of how you are perceived and how you want to be perceived. The audience is a big constraint that keeps you from talking in the way you may want to, but it is also a great way to step out of your element. It is my hope that speaking in different genres will challenge every speaker.

Analyzing Genre

I would argue that Genre can at the same time be both limiting and enabling. The key is that we must understand our audience as well as the context of the situation.

Sometimes Genre can limit what we are allowed to say or do in our presentation. For example, take the Presidential address; although the President may crack a few jokes, it would be highly inappropriate to render the speech in a satirical way. The President is basically stuck talking about big ideas, giving vague reports of how the country is doing, and sticking in many uplifting and cliche statements meant to get the viewers fired up. He doesn't have time to delve into detailed analysis of each issue, and he is forced to give the speech in a positive, uplifting manner.

On the other hand, in many situations Genre opens up a world of possibilities to us. For example, satire often allows us the freedom to do and say things that otherwise would be wildly inappropriate. If we are trying to point out the absurdity of wrongness of a particular candidate's views, we could just write an article about how everything they say is wrong and no one should vote for them. A few people would probably read it, write us off as biased nuts, and move on to the next article. However, we could instead do a satirical piece on the issue. Satire is often very entertaining- it gets people to read it because it's not just facts and opinions, but it's humor. More people would read our article, and would be much less likely to get offended at what we are saying, since after all it's just satire. However, they would also be listening to what we were saying, and there would be a much greater chance for them to internalize our words and not just write us off .

An interesting place where Genre can be used in new ways is video games. Historically, video games have been a form of entertainment, fun to mash buttons and shoot nazis or chop orcs in half. However, more and more, companies are using video games to tell a story instead of just entertain. The graphics and options open to developers now allows them great freedom in this respect; often video games now are more compelling story wise than many movies. This is a great example of a Genre being changed and used in new ways.

These are good examples of how Genre can really help or hinder you, depending on the circumstances.

Genre is the Mother of All Rhetoric

Genre is a limiting force because of audience.

I believe most people feel and act one particular way depending on the social milieu around them (one way at home, another at school, another at work perhaps, etc.). Hopefully without sounding too schizophrenic, I can admit that I do this as well. I will swear and joke around with friends in a casual setting but at home I speak plainly and calmly with my parents. More than making a statement about people’s personalities or lifestyles, I know that I do this consciously because of my audience.

I choose not swear at home because I know my dad hates swearing and will be upset and not listen to me. Or considering that my mom has multiple sclerosis I know that it is hard for her to remember things, so when I tell her something, I tell her about four times in four different ways over the course of an hour. Both an audience’s attitude and mental capacity/state in any genre is crucial for inspiring or inhibiting rhetorical success.

Genre is an excellent opportunity for tailoring a rhetorical strategy to the sympathies or outrages of a particular audience.

Genre can also be an excellent tool for the origination of exigencies and be the window for rhetoric to work in. For example, it is easier to write an essay on a prompt than on a concept you come up with vaguely in your head from many places. I can write right now about T.S. Eliot’s modernist influence but I cannot write about the economy. Sometimes a specific problem that you either know about or can research directly encourages the best-written papers. If necessity is the mother of invention, certainly genre is similarly the mother of rhetorical approach.

People are problem-solvers. We want to be able to explain why something is happening or decide what should be done about ‘x.’ When there is no problem ‘x’ there can be no solution ‘y’ and people continue on without the need for rhetoric. In this sense genre is the fountain for all rhetoric because genre and situation create a need for a solution and an audience for rhetoriticians to jump into (and in front of).

If a speaker must address an audience, as all speakers must—like Obama addressing an entire nation, he/she must use the audience as both a constraint and a clue for how to best employ rhetoric strategy. Obama had to look at issues and explain them in terms that the American people would understand and generally agree with if he wanted their support.

A good speaker or writer should use this to his/her advantage and trampoline from the constraint of genre into the possibilities of genre (like the ad we saw in class with the check and the homeless man geared toward persuading older women to donate money). In that sense genre is a beneficial set of cues for how best to get a message across considering that each audience has a different attitude and mental state which should be taken into account when discerning the best rhetorical strategy.

A Response to Aristotle

With his essay On Rhetoric, Aristotle argues that an audience's opinion of a person should not affect the way they receive that person's argument. The problem with this argument is that in many cases, the audience's prior opinion shapes their response before the speaker even steps on the stage. It is part of the subconscious- usually we don't even know that we're biased about what we're hearing. When you see a supermodel hawking the newest brand of soap, you don't think “I want that soap because that hot person uses it.” Instead, the effect of the beautiful person pushing the product works on a subconscious level. Good looking people simply put us in a better frame of mind than would, say, someone less attractive. This frame of mind in turn makes us more receptive to whatever product we're being sold. We start to associate good looks with that brand of soap- again, not on a conscious level, but in our subconscious.

Now, it's true that a person can overcome this tendency with a strong attention to what they're hearing. If you realize what the speaker is doing, and you admit that you have pre-existing feelings changing your judgement about their words, you can account for this fact; you can consciously ignore your feelings and focus on the logic of the speaker's argument. However, this takes a lot of focus and work to do. You can't just sit there and zone out, staring at the TV. You have to think about what you're hearing; look at what your feelings on the issue are, and then decide if those came about because of the logic of the speaker or the subconscious influence of your previous opinion of them.

So if you happen to be the speaker, how do you take all this into account? I would argue that depends highly on the context. For example, if you're outlining your latest breakthrough in electrodynamic quantum theory to a room full of professors and MIT students, you can be pretty sure that the audience is going to be thinking about your argument. They're probably active listeners that know about the topic already, and have an interest in breaking down your logic and actual argument instead of just writing you off without listening. However, if you're designing an advertisement to broadcast during a 3 minute break in the Superbowl, you can be pretty positive of the opposite sort of audience. The people watching your masterpiece are going to be excited about the game, probably slightly tipsy, and in no mood to think logically and deconstruct your advertising methods. In this case, their pre-existing thoughts on your company, as well as the subconscious suggestions you give them in the ad (hot women in bikinis, sports stars, people partying and smiling, etc.) are going to have much more of an effect, since the viewers aren't on the lookout to avoid such pitfalls.

I would argue, then, that as a listener we should accept Aristotle's argument, and do our best to separate our preexisting opinions of the speaker, as well as subconscious cues from their presentation, with the logic and validity of their actual argument. However, if we're the ones speaking, we much take all of this into account. We have to realize that we will never have an audience that is completely immune to such things. They may be more or less susceptible (such as a room full of scientists vs house full of beer drinking superbowl viewers), but in all cases there will be people listening to you that are swayed by things like prior opinion and subtle ploys to change their emotions.

Creating a "fitting" response

A general question when writing a paper or speech is: How will my audience respond to what I have to say? The normal answer is hopefully: The way in which I want them to.

When President Obama and his writing staff sat down the past few weeks to get ready for the State of the Union Address, I am sure they were all worried how the American public were going to respond. Some writers will just ignore their audience and hope that what they have to say is persuasive enough. However, this seldom works out. The biggest way to make an audience respond to you is to say what they want to hear. In Obama's case, he had to get the message across that what he did this first year worked. After watching the State of the Union tonight, it seems his way of showing that he has done a good job is to point out small successes, blame President Bush for things that are going badly, and humor.

I feel that these always seem to be a good way to write persuasively. The person delivering the speech or writing the paper wants to over emphasize any success that has occurred. In Obama's speech, he seemed to use correlation and causation as the same thing. He also celebrated the fact that the recession is ending and that Wall Street is doing better thanks to the bailout, but only quietly mentioned the $1 trillion that was added to our national debt.

To blame someone else is a great technique. If the other person is wrong, and the only other option is you, then you must be right. This also happens if someone screws up before you, you can blame them for your shortfalls. This was part of the theme in Obama's speech. Which yes, President Bush does have blame for part of our current deficit and economic situation. So, on one hand the Obama is right to mention President Bush's shortfalls. However, when being persuasive, one must use some hyperbole. To blame someone more than needed can get those who are unsure to sway to your side, and get those who agree with you to get even more excited about the issue.

The last way in which I will talk about rhetoric situations is using humor. No one has ever gone wrong with making a joke. Ok, that may not be true, but lets run with it. Humor is a good way to keep people involved in the event. If you feel people slipping away or disagreeing with you, make a small joke that does not harm anyone. This will cause almost everyone to laugh (hopefully) and be in agreement with the speaker. It breaks tension, and it allows people to forget about the bigger picture for a second. Obama did this a few times in his speech tonight. He joked that Michelle Obama "embarrasses easily" and that he was hoping to "get some applause from the Republicans" when talking about tax cuts. These are harmless quips that show the speaker or writer is still human and not superior. It is a pretty good strategy in my eyes.

Overall, there are many different ways to approach rhetorical situations, and the three I have mentioned seem to work out very well.

The Information Reputation

People, the national ethos, rely on reputation as a measure of authority.

If someone has a reputation for honesty, you trust them to tell the truth. If someone has a reputation for greed, you suspect them of trying to swindle you. If you are the President, your reputation carries a lot of authority and the actions you take/speeches you give greatly impact the lives of the national audience.

This power, like all power, can be ultimately beneficial or harmful. As a President or a celebrity, what you say and do makes the magazines: people read about you, judge you and your message, and behave according to their conclusions about your rhetoric.

If this means Oprah raises a million dollars for breast cancer because people trust her three-decade-long campaign for human betterment, maybe reputation is a good thing. After all, authority encourages us to behave well, be civilized, model ourselves after people we have high opinions of, etc. However, reputations are slandered every day, both for real and false reasons. Scandals, secrets, bad photos, and rumors—these are not just the crafts of grocery store magazines. These things happen to nearly every man and woman in the spotlight.

In this way reputation is double-edged; a good man with a great idea may be written off as a scoundrel and a bad man with egocentric goals may be seducing the masses. Reputation should be considered along with his rhetoric because an ungenerous tax cheat is not a good authority to listen to about something like balancing a state budget or fighting for funding.

But take it with a grain of salt.

Manipulation, which is very related to publicity (and therefore to reputation as well), is also an aspect of rhetoric that can serve to persuade. Pathos is easily interpreted as manipulation—showing commercials of the children with flies on their faces both shows us someone else’s true reality and manipulates our worldview with the goal of loosening our purse strings. But audience is also manipulated by public opinion. Is that a good thing? In the case of the Africa commercials it saves lives (whether it is ethical or not is temporarily irrelevant). The point is that reputation is also a form of manipulating the ethos of the audience, which means that reputation can also lead to good or bad ultimate ends. Manipulating an audience’s frame of mind is observed on almost every liveTV show (women crying on the Tyra Banks show, laughing on Ellen, raising their hands and giving money on the late-night Christian revival channels). The important judgment call the audience must make is whether the orator is someone who’s opinion is worthy of listening to/”taking to heart.”

The rhetoric is as important as the rhetorical situation and the credibility of the speaker. As a society, the majority of us measure the credibility of speakers by their reputations (are they leftwing or rightwing? do they give to charity? do they tell the truth on their shows? are they informed? is their show/text/speech believable? does it matter to me? do I admire that? and so on…). And many times it is accurate—we know that Jerry Springer’s opinion is not something we put stock in, and we know that Courtney Love’s views are about as helpful as Lindsay Lohan’s.

Why? Because we see these people at their moral worst. They are in rehab, they are in it for the money, their million dollar donations do not dent their multimillion-dollar bank accounts or even pass through their own hands. Other people handle these celebrities, these celebrities’ accounts, and these celebrities’ reputations. Publicity, which is very related to reputation, can expose or distort a truth.

We need to be informed of people’s lives and lifestyles in order to decided if their example is one that we respect and support. If they succeed in winning our approval, they become a legitimate authority. Even in class, we saw John Stuart use satire and comedy to sucessfully gain public sympathy and put an end to “Crossfire.” As he challenged the real newspeople in an intelligent, pragmatic way he earned/strengthened his reputation as a man who gives his honest opinion and a man who represents the national voting mass.

Information is power, right? It has the power to build or destroy, inspire or dishearten, improve lives or damage lives. Reputation is simply information about a person’s character and status, which is powerful. The bigger the reputation (the more well-known someone is), the more power they accumulate. For good or bad, this information gives the reader a lens through which to judge these celebrities’ rhetoric.

It is up to the audience to be wary of motive and thoughtful of the future, and for this the audience should judge a speaker’s reputation. Unfortunately the message itself is inadequate proof of a good, logical message or a poor, weak message. Who says it is nearly as important as what is being said. We may be sometimes blinded in judging a celebrity, but we would be even more blind to judge the message without knowing the context, source, or end of any rhetoric.