The Final Paper

Chris Kurz
ENG 121
Paper 3 Final Draft

Down the Tubes
Lately in America, people are performing ridiculous acts just to get their shot at fame. Whether it is the endless parade of reality television shows or holding up a sign at a ballgame, the fame seeking has gone too far. We have become a culture that is obsessed with fame. One needs only to look at the packs of paparazzi that follow the every move of potentially newsworthy celebrities for an example of out of control fame worshipping.  The Internet site YouTube helps contribute to this pursuit of fame by allowing people to post videos for the whole world to see. Most of what appears on YouTube are events that make our society look bad. Instead of focusing on video arts, YouTube is all about the individual quest for fame and laziness. YouTube is, and will continue to be, a contributing factor to our fame mongering culture until the website makes some changes.
In the last month, a group of teenagers decided that they were going to make a video to post on YouTube. This alone is not an abnormal occurrence; however, everything that followed was highly abnormal. A group of girls that felt they had been disrespected by another girl decided that they would set up an ambush of the girl and record it all on video. The girls cornered their victim while two boys stood guard outside. The girl was beaten badly enough to sustain hearing damage. All of this transpired in order to exact revenge on a girl by posting her beating on YouTube. For a while these girls felt famous. What is worse is that the television show Dr. Phil bailed one of the girls out just to get a chance to interview her.
Dr. Phil obviously made this gesture strictly as a move for a ratings bonanza. Any hot topic in pop culture becomes fodder for the daytime televisions circuit to cash in on. Dr. Phil and his staff took a huge bite of the bait that these girls presented them. They wanted everyone to know that they had beat this girl up and when Dr. Phil decided keep the story going by bailing out, and then interviewing one of the attackers he just gave these girls more of what they wanted; recognition of their attack. In this instance YouTube acted as the initial platform for fame and Dr. Phil’s television show provided the piggyback to keep the unwarranted fame spiral spinning out of control.
YouTube is becoming a venue for rhetoric for American teenagers. Unfortunately, the form of persuasion that teenagers are practicing involves videos that attempt to prove their point regardless of who gets hurt. These videos are the language of the teenage generation that uses their commonplace videophones instead of face-to-face communication. As Chinua Achebe stated, “It has long been known that language, like any other human invention, can be abused, can be turned from its original purpose into to something useless or even deadly” (597). Achebe’s words summarize exactly what this video form of language has become. Not only is it useless, it is only a matter of time until someone’s death is posted and watched on YouTube.
This is not to say that all that YouTube has to offer is useless. Recently the University of California at Berkley decided to start posting lectures on YouTube. Closer to Bozeman, The Gallatin National Forest Avalanche Center has posted instructional videos about properly assessing avalanche danger in the backcountry. There are also many filmmakers who post their work on YouTube as a means of possibly getting discovered by Hollywood. If everything on YouTube was as constructive as these two examples, then there would be far less controversy about the site. Alas, this is not the case. YouTube has become the forum of videos about nothing. The website has opened the door for anyone to walk through and post a video that does not have to mean anything to anyone except the videographer. YouTube is trolling for sensationalism in the Dead Sea of videos. No doubt the era of paparazzi and home videos has contributed to this wide-open forum.
Ever since mass media decided to start reporting on the lives of Hollywood stars, America’s obsession with fame has snowballed. Now there are mountains of magazines, television shows, radio programs that deal solely with the rich and famous. People want to know where their favorite star eats for dinner and what they are wearing. The average American sees these people as examples of the American dream. That is why so many people watch reality television shows. There are millions of Americans that dream of a better life that includes fame and fortune. The problem is that it is not easy to become famous. And even if one does become famous, very few famous people contribute anything to society other than entertainment.
The obsession with fame leads to an entire generation of people who know that a taste of fame is only a couple of mouse clicks away. These days almost everyone has a cell phone regardless of their social class. Most of the phones available today also offer a video camera. Now everyone can film their own videos and post them on YouTube. If the video is popular enough, fame and fortune await. Your best friend’s video of his friend wiping out on his skateboard could be right next to a short film on YouTube that stars Will Ferrell. In this scenario the difference between being rich and famous and someone with a video on YouTube is minimal: however, in three months no one will be watching the skateboard video, while Will Ferrell will be releasing another feature film.
The fame that most YouTube users are seeking is the type of fame that does not last. YouTube showcases the differences between famous, infamous, and fleeting familiarity. Some Hollywood actors and actresses use YouTube to showcase short films that take them back to their roots in film. This is where YouTube has the right idea in letting entertainers do their entertaining in area where the viewer doesn’t have to pay as if they were seeing a movie. Other people like to post their pratfalls, wrecks, and other shortcomings. These videos either end up as infamous or just a passing fancy. To become truly infamous one must create something dubious that sticks in the mind of all society. John Hinckley Jr. is infamous for trying to kill Ronald Reagan. The majority of the videos on YouTube do not qualify as being infamous. They just end as a tidbit in the back of most people’s minds.
YouTube has become an outlet for so many people. These people are searching for a place to express themselves in a way that they cannot in a normal setting. Unfortunately, some people take this freedom of expression too far. They use YouTube as a place to release all that is pent up inside of them. Octavio Paz wrote about the Mexican fiestas that each small town had once a year. These fiestas are place where Paz wrote, “…the silent Mexican whistles, shouts, sings, shoots off fireworks, discharges his pistol into the air. He discharges his soul” (348). Events like those that Paz wrote about took place once a year in each Mexican town. People could release tensions and act out for a day. Their goal was not to hurt anyone, it was to realize that life is hard and everyone needs to vent some steam every once in a while. YouTube is becoming a Mexican fiesta that is available every day of the week.
If you go to the website youtube.com you can view millions of videos from people all over the world. The majority of these videos are mindless snippets that range from a monkey peeing on another monkey, to someone using a video phone to record the latest episode of a television show they think is entertaining. In Mo Tzu’s writing he said, “It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world, to eliminate the harmful and to provide a model for the world’ (284). YouTube does not contribute in any way like the benevolent man that Mo Tzu wrote about. Instead YouTube promotes a world frivolous escapes and lack of responsibility.
The lack of responsibility starts with the content that YouTube allows on their site. There are numerous pending lawsuits against YouTube for copyright infringement. This affects many artists who are trying to earn money by productively using their talent to make a living. Additionally, YouTube has fought to have footage of hostages being tortured reinstated to their website. While YouTube is entitled to free speech, they straddle a fine line between sensationalism and freedom of expression. There is no need for people to see someone being tortured or a puppy-throwing contest. Videos such as these contribute nothing towards society.
In conclusion, YouTube is not going to contribute much to society if it remains in its present form. The company should look seriously at making changes to the content it allows.  The site could exist as a place for filmmakers and lecturers without all of the useless videos that involve violence and injury. Thankfully, the girls who orchestrated the beating are being tried as adults for their crimes. Perhaps this will discourage any possible copycats from creating a similar video. Our society cannot have a web site where anyone is allowed to exact revenge on another human for the whole world to see. It is time for YouTube to make some changes before someone’s life goes down the tubes.

Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “Language and the Destiny of Man.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 592-99.
Mo Tzu. “Against Music.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 283-87.
Paz, Octavio. From “The Day of the Dead.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 346-51.

The Beauty of Spin Control ©

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis       

English 121

Essay 3, Final Draft

5^th of May 2008

© 2008

The Beauty of Spin Control

            Being able to put an unsuspecting spin on an issue is a great skill and a beautiful thing at that.  The lead character of the movie Thank You For Smoking embodies the art of spin control; he never seems to be at a loss for words and always has an intelligent rebuttal on hand, even when it seems that he is finished for good. Somebody well-versed in the tools of rhetoric can argue any point of an issue, even when it conflicts with what is accepted to be true by the general consensus of society. The ability to do just this represents spin control. Having this innate ability to a put a spin on any issue and come out on top, through the use of this skillful use of rhetoric, represents power.

            Spin control could be defined as the attempt to evoke a specific desired public response through the presentation of biased or select information, but there is more behind the idea of spin control. Spin control does not mainly involve using manipulative techniques to distort reality. Rather, it involves how or from what angle a certain point is argued. Spin control allows its user to put an issue into a new light, possibly redrawing the lines of conflict. Using spin control properly can turn the initial argument around on the person it originated from, since spin control embodies the use of inventive and surprising counter-arguments. The movie Thank You For Smoking shows a few wonderful examples of the proper use of spin control.

            In the movie Thank You For Smoking the main character, Nick Naylor, is a lobbyist in charge of defending big tobacco from the legislation and litigation brought forth by the opposition. Nick Naylor possesses all the skills that are required to be great orator; he is a great public speaker and is able to argue almost any point with ease. His confidence in his own skills as a lobbyist are quite extensive as well. But a little bit of arrogance actually helps in his line of work because it exhibits his confidence in himself, and, more importantly, in his own ideas or arguments. He truly believes in the powers of rhetoric, as this quote directed towards his son, shows: “If you argue well then you are never wrong.” According to his statement, the truth is unimportant, since it can be manipulated through rhetoric to ensure triumph. Being aware of this notion, Nick Naylor, uses this power during the movie.

            The leading character essentially finds big tobacco an enticing challenge, allowing him to hone his argumentative skills by taking a position that few could plausibly defend, but for which he seems to be born for. It is spin itself that Nick Naylor worships. Spin is the ability or the art of making a seductive and convincing point, no matter how monstrous or irresponsible that task would seem at first. Nick Naylor has found something that few people are able to: he has found a job that he loves; he loves the challenges it represents and how he can use his argumentative skills to overcome them. In the end, Nick Naylor is battling with his opposition according to the rules of the system established here in the United States, which encourages these tactics to be used. There are numerous parts of legislation that are introduced or essentially controlled through lobbyists; many people often do not recognize the enormous sphere of influence that they have on today’s government. Lobbyists are battling a system, the government, which encourages their tactics.

            Rhetoric may be used to do good or evil, pursue the truth or twist it, but that by itself just proves its power and versatility. This paper will not be exploring the moral implications of using rhetoric, but rather the power, and the ability of persuasion it conveys upon a great orator. Achebe, who talks about the power and importance of language, mentions the ability to misuse it: “It has long been known that language, like any other human invention, can be abused, can be turned from its original purpose into something useless or even deadly” (Achebe 597). In the case of this movie the orator was forced to argue for cigarettes and against the general beliefs society has in their effects on health. This makes for a very challenging argument, since many people are not even willing to listen to any arguments, having made up their mind on the issue a long time ago. Therefore in order to be able to defend big tobacco a lot of persuasive skill is required.

            The extent of one’s ability to use language in order to express oneself directly reflects one’s level of education. Being able to communicate well is part of a well-rounded education. Rhetoric represents the art or technique of using language effectively in order to persuade. Socrates believed it to be more important to “win a debate…than discover the truth” (Plato 539). Nick Naylor seems to live by this philosophy. Nick Naylor is ready and willing to dispute any scientific evidence that shows smoking causing cancer. He works for the Academy of Tobacco Studies, which on behalf of big tobacco produces research on the effects of smoking cigarettes. The Academy’s research was considered dubious at best by their opponents. But, Nick Naylor does never during the movie claim outright that smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer, since that would prove to be an argument almost impossible to win. He rather abstains from discussing that part about cigarettes and uses other areas of discussion to win his arguments.

            Without language, society would not be able to function. Society represents a group of people characterized by a set of common interests and similar cultural backgrounds. Communication between the people is what allows a society to function, because a group as large as society needs to be oriented into a common direction to achieve its interests. “Unquestionably, language was crucial to the creation of society. There is no way in which human society could exist without speech” (Achebe 593). It follows that, without language skills, a person will not be able to function well as part of society. It may also be argued that the greater someone’s language skills are the easier they will find being part of society and being successful in that position. Language skills are not only composed of written language, but spoken language and the critical thinking needed behind forming arguments in that form. Communication skills, written and oral, are an important part of everyone’s education. Without language, we would lack a medium in which to interact, which would prove detrimental to the workings of society. When people are unable to communicate even at the simplest level can easily lead to misunderstandings, which without language to reconcile them would often escalate.

            Proper use of rhetoric allows an orator to persuade people in the way that they see fit. Rhetoric is used in everyday life, and has an effect on all the members of society. For example, the media uses rhetoric in advertising everyday, in order to persuade people to buy the advertised product. Any form of advertising incorporates rhetoric. Advertisements often subliminally suggest certain things happening as a result of purchasing their product. A cigarette commercial might depict a very successful, handsome and energetic person smoking, suggesting that by buying that car, the new owner would become more like the person in the commercial. Spin control was used to switch the attention away from the negative connotations of smoking, the health effects involved, towards more positive aspects.

            The true beauty of spin control is its ability to provide unexpected twists to an argument. By wielding spin control effectively, the roles of the parties arguing can be switched, but this only works if there are distinct roles that have been established. In a lot of arguments there seems to be an aggressor of sorts, like Senator Finistirre; someone who is confident about their argument, maybe a little too confident because it coincides with the common consensus. By using spin control the initial aggressor can be put into a figurative defensive retreat, being completely surprised by the counterattack since they were so confident in their argument. There are numerous instances in the movie where this form of spin control is used effectively.

            The movie starts out with Nick Naylor being present at a talk show discussing the effects of tobacco on children; in order to underscore this point, the talk show invited a young teenage boy in a wheel-chair suffering from cancer, attributed to his former smoking habit. At the beginning of the talk show, Nick Naylor is universally hated by the audience. At the time, there seems to be no hope for him. The audience is booing him and in general only showing hatred towards him. Instead of giving up, he fights back. During his rebuttal, he states that it is in the cigarette companies’ best interests to keep the child healthy since they will make more money that way. Nobody had expected this type of response out of him, and his opponents are stunned and unable to come up with a coherent counter attack. The rebuttal drew not only on logic, but also on emotion. It triggered the emotions of the audience, because it showed that it had never been big tobacco’s intention to cause the boy any harm and that they felt for his hardship. In terms of logic his argument was very simple and straightforward, which ensured that everyone was able to understand it. The counter-argument is completely void of morals, but this works in Nick Naylor’s favor, since he and the companies he represents had continually been accused of acting amorally. These preconceived notions held by the people about the tobacco companies actually help the audience accept the counter argument, since it coincided with their original beliefs. Nick Naylor was able to turn a possible liability, the negative stigma of tobacco companies, into a positive, a tool of rhetoric to support his arguments.

            Great persuasive speakers adapt their arguments to their audience. They will consider the morals and interests of their target audience when appealing to them. According to Cicero, this needs to be done in the introduction or exordium: “An exordium is an address bringing the mind of the hearer into a suitable state to receive the rest of the speech, and that will be effected if it had rendered him well disposed towards the speaker, attentive, and willing to receive information” (Cicero 571). It is hard for a speech to be successful if it is not set up properly. During the movie there are a few instances when Nick Naylor softens up the crowd before making his argument. For example at the beginning of the movie when Nick Naylor is appearing on a television talk show, he begins with a statement expressing his condolences about the child’s condition before he initiates his counter argument.

            Another instance in the movie where Nick Naylor harnessed the full powers of spin control was in the senate committee hearing on the tobacco warning label towards the end of the movie. Senator Finistirre is trying to introduce a bill that would label all cigarette packages sold as poison, in writing and with a symbol.[1] In the beginning, Nick Naylor is attacked for supporting big tobacco; Senator Finistirrre makes a conscious attempt at labeling him a mass murderer. Nick counters this, first, by highlighting how many other things cause death every day. Later on, he points out that heart disease, or the cholesterol that causes it, is the leading cause of death in the United States today, ahead of cancer. He attacks Senator Finistirre, a senator from Vermont, for clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont cheddar cheese. The saying that the best defense is a great offense holds true in the case of rhetoric too. Nick Naylor was able to turn the tide on Senator Finistirre. The senator was stunned by his counter argument. The only thing the Senator could think of to respond with was to label the idea insane, but he was unable to bring forth a logical and concise argument to back up this reasoning. The senator was unable to deal with the element of surprise. An important part of spin control is the psychological effect of surprise, because if someone is surprised by a specific response or counterargument it means that they are unprepared to state a rebuttal.

            Throughout the movie, the power of spin control is depicted and used to great success. Nick Naylor is a true master of rhetoric and, more specifically, spin control. He made his ability to talk and argue into a job that he loves and succeeds at. This movie allows us to see that the ability to use rhetoric in an artistic manner can be beneficial to an orator. Rhetoric may be used for good or evil, either way it is adept at influencing everything around it. The same holds true for spin control. Lobbyists are not the only ones who use spin control. Some politicians and advertising agents thrive on it. In anything to do with public communication rhetoric and spin control can be used to influence the opinions of people. Spin control embodies one of the most useful tools of rhetoric and one that we should all be aware of.

 

Appendix Materials:

Plot Summary:

            The chief spokesperson and lobbyist Nick Naylor is the Vice-President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. He uses his talents in public speaking and debate to defend the tobacco industry in the most difficult situations. His task, of promoting the tobacco industry in a time when the health hazards of the activity have become too great to ignore, seems nearly impossible. He is friends with two fellow lobbyists, they are Polly Bailey, who works in the Moderation Council defending the alcohol industry, and Bobby Jay Bliss, who represents the gun manufacturers’ own advisory group S.A.F.E.T.Y. Together they make up the M.O.D. Squad a.k.a. Merchants of Death. They frequently meet and discuss the current issues affecting their line of work. Vermont’s Senator Finistirre represents Nick’s greatest opposition, he is proposing a law that would feature an image of a skull and cross bone and the inscription “Poison” on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. Nick’s son, Joey Naylor, lives with his mother and her boyfriend doctor. It is important to Nick for his son to understand the intricacies of his job. In order to do this Nick takes his son along on several of his business trips. The reporter Heather Holloway ends up betraying Nick by disclosing certain information about him in an article, which she had coerced out of him during sex. The article she writes exposes a lot of background information about Nick Naylor; the existence of the M.O.D. squad and a lot of Nick Naylor’s personal beliefs are relieved in the article. At first his world seems to be in danger of collapsing and he becomes depressed. But then his son comes and visits. This is an excerpt of their conversation, which ends up inspiring Nick to quit feeling sorry for himself and start fighting back again:

            Joey Naylor: Why are you hiding from everyone?

            Nick Naylor: It has something to do with being generally hated right now.

            Joey Naylor: But it’s your job to be generally hated.

            Nick Naylor: It’s more complicated than that, Joey.

            Joey Naylor: You’re just making it more complicated so that you can feel sorry for yourself.                                             Like you always said, “If you want an easy job, go work for the Red Cross.”

 

At this point in the movie Nick returns to his “A” game. He goes ahead and meets the Vermont senator in the congressional meeting on the law that would relabel cigarette packages as poison. As usual Nick is able to hold his ground well with his immense skills of spin control. He even is labeled as the Sultan of Spin during the movie. The movie ends with him working for a new industry and introducing the present executives to the beauty of spin control. After Nick gives them a statement that they can respond with to their aggressors the three executives sigh in relief. This marks the end of the movie, his final quote is quite memorable:

            Nick Naylor: Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a                                             talent.

Another one of Nick’s favorite sayings, mentioned throughout the movie, is that ninety percent of what is done in this world is done in order to pay for a mortgage of some kind.

 

Nick Naylor Testifies Before A Congressional Committee

On The Possible Warning Label For Cigarettes

Senator Finistirre: Please state your name, address, and current occupation.

Nick Naylor: My name is Nick Naylor. I live at 6000 Massachusetts Avenue. I am currently unemployed but until recently I was the Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies.

Senator Finistirre: Mr. Naylor, as Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, what was required of you? What did you do?

 Nick Naylor: I informed the public of all the research performed in the investigation on the effects of tobacco.

Senator Finistirre: And what, so far, has the Academy concluded in their investigation into the effects of tobacco?

Nick Naylor: Well, many things actually. Why just the other day they uncovered evidence that smoking can offset Parkinson’s disease.

 Senator Finistirre: I’m sure the health community is thrilled. Mr. Naylor, who provides the financial background for the Academy of Tobacco Studies?

Nick Naylor: Conglomerated Tobacco.

Senator Finistirre: That’s the cigarette companies.

Nick Naylor: For the most part, yes.

Senator Finistirre: Do you think that might affect their priorities?

 Nick Naylor: No. Just as, I’m sure, campaign contributions don’t affect yours.

 Senator Lothridge: Mr. Naylor is not here to testify on the goings on of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. We’re here to examine the possibility of a warning label on cigarettes. Now, Mr. Naylor, I have to ask you out of formality, do you believe that smoking cigarettes, over time, can lead to lung cancer and lead to other respiratory conditions such as emphysema.

Nick Naylor: Yes. In fact, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who really believes that cigarettes are not potentially harmful. I mean — show of hands — Who out here thinks that cigarettes aren’t dangerous?

 Senator Dupree: Mr. Naylor, there’s no need for theatrics.

Nick Naylor: I’m sorry. I just don’t see the point in a warning label for something people already know.

 Senator Dupree: The warning symbol is a reminder, a reminder of the dangers of smoking cigarettes.

Nick Naylor: Well, if we want to remind people of danger why don’t we slap a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes, Senator Lothridge [Rep. Washington]. And all Fords, Senator Dupree [Rep. Michigan].

Senator Finistirre: That is ridiculous. The death toll from airline and automobile accidents doesn’t even skim the surface cigarettes. They don’t even compare.

Senator Finistirre: Oh, this from a Senator who calls Vermont home.

Senator Lothridge: I don’t follow you, Mr. Naylor.

 Nick Naylor: Well, the real demonstrated #1 killer in America is cholesterol. And here comes Senator Finistirre whose fine state is, I regret to say, clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. If we want to talk numbers, how about the millions of people dying of heart attacks? Perhaps Vermont Cheddar should come with a skull and crossbones.

Senator Finistirre: That is lu –. The great state of Vermont will not apologize for                                                                          its cheese!

Senator Lothridge: Mr. Naylor, we are here to discuss cigarettes — not planes, not cars — cigarettes. Now as we discussed earlier these warning labels are not for those who know but rather for those who don’t know. What about the children?

Nick Naylor: Gentlemen, it’s called education. It doesn’t come off the side of a cigarette carton. It comes from our teachers, and more importantly our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older they can choose for themselves. I look at my son who was kind enough to come with me today, and I can’t help but think that I am responsible for his growth and his development. And I’m proud of that.

Senator Finistirre: Well, having said that, would you condone him smoking?

Nick Naylor: Well, of course not. He’s not 18. That would be illegal. Senator Finistirre: Yes, I’ve heard you deliver that line on 20/20, but enough dancing. What are you going to do when he turns 18? C’mon, Mr. Naylor. On his 18th birthday will you share a cigarette with him? Will you spend a lovely afternoon — like one of your ludicrous cigarette advertisements? You seem to have to have a lot to say about how we should raise our children. What of your own?

What are you going to do when he turns 18?

Naylor: If he really wants a cigarette. I’ll buy him his first pack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited:

            Achebe. “Language and the Destiny of Man.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed.                                    Michael Austin. New York: Norton,   2006. 592-600.

            American Rhetoric. Movie Speech: Thank You For Smoking. 18 April 2008.                                               <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthankyouforsmoking2.html>

            Cicero. “On Rhetorical Invention” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed.                                                       Michael Austin. New York: Norton,   2006. 570-575.

            IMDb: The Internet Movie Database. Memorable Quotes for Thank You For Smoking.

                        13 April 2008. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/quotes>.

            Movie: Thank You For Smoking. (2005) FOX Studios.

Plato. “Gorgias.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York:                                        Norton, 2006. 539-548.

           

           

 

---

[1]                A full and detailed recollection of the dialog during the congressional committee meeting is given in the appendix.

Final Paper!!! Enjoy your summer!

Mary Alice Dewees

Writing 121/Paliobagis

May 5, 2008

Expression and Video Games

Growing up, every person must learn how to handle their emotions and feelings in a proper way. While dealing with joy and happiness seem to come naturally, the same is not true when it comes to feelings like rage and aggression. To cope, some people may exercise, garden, or take up a hobby, or worse they may deal with their emotions by overeating, beating their spouse, or abusing drugs. Even still, some find that escaping to an imaginary and often vicious world offered by video games is the best way to find relief. It is important to understand that these violence filled games serve not only as a form of entertainment, but, they provide the player with a harmless avenue to deal with emotions like stress and anger.

America’s fascination with technology and computers took on the form of entertainment beginning in the early 1980s. The invention of games like Pong and Pac-Man enabled the average American a chance to play in a new interactive way. As technology advanced so did the games, and by the time the new century arrived games had become considerably more realistic. Video game companies realized that they no longer had to make products accommodating only the child’s taste; their age base had expanded to now include adult players. Many children of the late 70s and 80s grew up playing video games and as should be expected continued to play as adults. Video game companies tapped into the needs of these adult game players by making more games centered on mature themes like extreme violence. Adults were not just limited to playing the virtuous heroes; players could now take on roles like, criminal, drug dealer, or gangster. As a result, this genre of violent video games was met with high demand, often resulting in newer or additional versions made year to year.

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a prime example of the type of game adults are choosing to play. The player of this game takes on the persona of Tommy Vercetti. Tommy is a shady character who has no problem robbing, killing, or destroying any person or thing who might try to jeopardize his chance of becoming the top crime boss of Vice City. Among other scandalous activities, Tommy must car-jack innocent people, fornicate with prostitutes, blow-up buildings, and kill off opposing gang members all while building his own crime-ridden empire.

Since their development, these types of video games have been subject to close scrutiny for the role they play in the behavior of the individual. People want to correlate the violence and blood shed in these games with the reactions the player may eventually exhibit, as if to say that the exposure to violence within these games may somehow influence people to act out in the same manner. It would be unreasonable to think that someone would commit crime simply because they acted the behavior out through a game. Only an irrational, mentally unstable person would confuse the violent fantasy found in games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City with reality. Any right minded individual is fully aware that these violent video games are not true to life.

It is also essential for people to realize that every game, video or not, is created solely for entertainment purposes; however, this does not mean every person should have access to play every video game. For instance, because of the graphic nature of the game, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is labeled “for mature audiences only”. By using proper labeling video game companies not only safeguard themselves, but they also help to ensure that each consumer knows what they are purchasing. Video game producers are aware that children are very impressionable and may have a harder time distinguishing fantasy from reality; and therefore should not have access to play violent video games. Adults on the other hand, function on a higher level of reasoning than children and should be allowed to choose to play these types of mature games. As with any controversial form of art like hardcore rap or X-rated movies, adults should also have the right to engage in violent video game play.

Besides being a form of entertainment, another key element to understanding why one would chose to engage in playing violent video games, is to be aware of the connection between the release of emotion and playing. While feelings of rage and anger may not be considered desired emotions they are inescapable and must be dealt with. People know the dangers involved when someone continuously bottles emotion up, these people have a tendency to lose their temper and become enraged even over the most trivial of events. Like a tea kettle whistling because it has become too hot, people also have limits as to how much rage and anger can build up inside. Willingly or not one will emotionally blow their top if they do not release the boiling pressure within.

Octavio Paz, one of Mexico’s greatest writers, addresses this very idea in his essay “The Day of the Dead”. Paz discusses how even in times of great joy and celebration the occasional outburst of violence may occur. Paz reasons that these occurrences happen because feelings like anger have not been thoroughly dealt with or perhaps never even acknowledged. He uses the example of the Mexican fiesta to describe his ideas. Once or twice a year during times of fiesta, the secluded Mexican has the chance to express himself; his good characteristics as well as his bad. Paz writes, “…he seeks to escape from himself, to leap over the wall of solitude that confines him during the rest of the year. All are possessed by violence and frenzy”(348). Because society has certain ideas about when and where one should express their feelings, a person must take advantage of the times when one can rid themselves of harbored rage and anger. The Mexican at fiesta could be compared to a person who is attempting to enjoy what is left after a long, tiring, and frustrating day at work. Either by partying at fiesta or playing the role of heartless criminal a person has a chance to liberate their built up feelings and therefore move forward.

While some oppose the excessive violent content found in video games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, others simply see the playing of video games to be a waste of time. They question what someone has to show after spending time playing video games. Mo Tzu author of “Against Music” would certainly agree that playing video games is fruitless. Mo Tzu uses music as a reference to explain why such activities “are not useful to society”(283). Mo Tzu continues to explain his point by questioning “Does this do anything to provide food and clothing for the people?”(284). According to Mo Tzu, a perfect world would be one which eliminated these seemingly futile endeavors like music, arts, and video games.

What Mo Tzu failed to realize is that the activities involved with entertaining provide people with ways to deal with stress, anger, sadness or other emotions, all of which are vital to every person’s mental well-being. One is less productive in life if they do not have a way to express themselves especially when dealing with emotions that are not so pleasant like anger and rage. So it makes sense that one might choose to handle their feelings by taking on imaginary roles like Tommy Vercetti where they can kill, steal, and act out violent crimes without any fear of punishment.

Kenneth Burke, author of The Rhetoric of Motives, also makes some valid points concerning the importance of releasing emotion. Burke was convinced “that the ability to mediate conflicts through language, rather than through violence, provided the best hope for the human race to avoid destroying itself”(538). Language is considered a form of communication, likewise, video games could be thought of as communication. Via an imaginary character a player is able to express or communicate their inner conflicts without causing true physical harm.

Along with communication, the link between identity and video games is another important connection to make in understanding why people choose to use violent video games as a means to emotional liberation. To Burke, identification was achieved when “… perceptions, needs, and values one person or a group (has) are shared by another”(386). Following these concepts, video game companies in turn developed characters that the players could relate with; characters which the player could vicariously live through. For instance, when someone takes on the role of common criminal they are able to gain bits of insight into lives outside of themselves. This relatable insight is the perfect combination of realism and fantasy, which keep the player interested and coming back for more.

Video games could also be thought of as a means of deliberate activity which keep man from submitting to their evil desires. Hsün Tzu wrote in Man’s Nature is Evil, that “He is born with feelings of envy and hate, and if he indulges these, they will lead him into violence and crime, and all that sense of loyalty and good faith will disappear”(25). Hsün Tzu’s views may have been a bit radical, but it can be agreed upon that all people will at some time experience feelings of hate and jealousy. By playing violent video games the player can expresses both feelings of rage and anger without losing their honorable personality traits. Playing the role of characters like Tommy Vercetti in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City create an avenue for one to commit heinous acts like murder and theft, but never resulting in a permanent change of who a person is at the core.

Video games have come a long way since their start back in the early 80s. What was once considered child’s play is now a part of many adult’s lives. Even in the face of opposition, video games continue to be a popular source of entertainment and emotional release. Video games can help one escape to an imaginary world where it is okay to act out even the most gruesome behavior. In all, these games create a benefit not only for the companies who make these games but the adults who play them as well.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter.

Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 538, 585-90.

Paz, Octavio. “The Day of the Dead.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed.

Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 346-51.

Tzu, Hsün. “Man’s Nature is Evil.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael

Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 24-32.

Tzu, Mo. “Against Music.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin.

New York: Norton, 2006. 283-87.

Appendix

Video games have been around since the eighties, and are now almost as prevalent in the average house as the television. In recent years, games have become so realistic that one can play out roles of being a solider, race car driver, warrior and even a criminal. This paper is going to be centered on the games in which one plays the villainous/ criminal role; specifically focusing on the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a game based city that would remind one of Miami the weather is warm, sunny and located right on the beach. Vice City has a population of 1.8 million people made up of rednecks, retirees, and drug dealers with a large portion of Cubans, and Haitians. The economy of Vice City relies heavily on tourism, and the black market.

In the video game one plays the part of Tommy Vercetti. Tommy becomes involved with shady criminals involved in drug rings around the town of Vice City. In order to make money Tommy must commit various illegal acts such as robbing or killing people. Each task that has been carried out successfully is rewarded with large sums of money, which in turn is used for Tommy to build his own drug ring. While Tommy starts out one the lowest end of the totem pole, eventually it is he who becomes the most powerful ‘drug lord’.

ANYONE WANT TO READ AND COMMENT???????????????

Hey….i really didn’t get a chance to explain my paper in class because some people got the wrong idea of what i was trying to say. So, here it is, i’ll accept ANY comments (good or bad) (the more the better!)

Chelsey Colbert

April 23, 2006

The Art of Dieting

            The society in which Americans live today is one that is overwhelmed in the obsession of beauty. One can see this by the sky-rocketing number of plastic surgeries per year, the multi-billion dollar beauty industry, and the ever changing new weight-loss miracle pill. Americans are obsessed to the point where advertisements for beauty have invaded billboards, televisions, and radios. One popular company that contributes to these advertisements is the Weight-Watchers program. These advertisements may lead one to think that they are beneficial because of the current health state the nation is in. In the reality, these Weight-Watchers commercials have a negative impact through their message and are a negative influence through the use of their persuasion techniques.

            Behind every large company, there is a marketing team coming up with new ways to persuade customers to buy their products or sign up for their services. One popular phrase that Weight-Watchers uses is “Diets don’t work, Weight-Watchers does.” Even though the program that the company supports is a diet, the marketing strategists try to make their plan more appealing by categorizing it in a different light. They are currently using this strategy because the company marketers have figured out what consumers want. The new commercials that Weight-Watchers is producing are genius. They are trying to win over consumers by suggesting that people do not actually need what they are trying to sell. But if they would like to have better weight loss results, they could use their services to achieve their goal. They have figured out the great mystery behind excellent marketing: shoppers are susceptible to flattery.

            By knowing their audience, the marketing team at Weight-Watchers has been able to modify its campaign and therefore make their services more appealing to consumers. The marketing team knows, as Han Fei Tzu stated, that “the difficult thing about persuasion is to know the mind of the person one is trying to persuade and to be able to fit one’s words to it” (558). That is why they have changed their marketing strategy to the suggestion that diets do not actually work, and they know this, that is why they are offering people a program that is not called a diet, when in actuality that is what it is. Americans are tired of hearing about diets and wants to find one that will actually work; after all, beauty is an obsession.

            Even though Weight-Watchers commercials do not seem to be harmful, they have a very negative impact on the audience who views them. As stated by the Weight-Watchers Incorporated Company, there target demographics for the commercials and for their services are overweight women between the ages of 25 to 64 (A). If they have such a specific targeted group, why are these commercials on all the time, like after school? Are grown women, who presumably work a full time job, going to be home watching television after work? Students, particularly girls, are being exposed to these types of commercials that promote “fitting into the latest clothes by summertime.” It is no wonder why the nation’s youth is facing terrible eating disorders; it is because of the “constant bombardment of overly-thin women in the media and advertisements for weight-loss methods [that] puts an unhealthy mindset in a person, especially in the minds of women” (B).

            These commercials are produced solely for the company’s profit; they are making money by pressuring Americans to be thin. Thin, not healthy. As stated before, Weight-Watchers demographics include overweight women between the ages of 25 to 64. Only women, does our society only have overweight women? What about the overweight men? It is interesting that only women are targeted by this company; it is because women feel more pressure every day to be thin, as opposed to their male counterparts. They feel the pressure to be thin, not healthy, but thin. One commercial states:

            “Wanna lose weight and keep eating the foods you love? Go for it. Wanna fit into          the latest clothes by summer? You can do it. Wanna watch your waist line shrink      while enjoying the same foods as everyone else? Be our guest. Discover why      people attending Weight-Watchers meetings lose three times more weight than   those who go it alone.”

No where in this commercial did it say anything like “Wanna be able to run five miles by next summer?” The program is only promoting beauty by your measurements, not health. Meanwhile, as Weight-Watchers is encouraging America to be a size 0, they are making millions of dollars per year from their services. As reported by the company, in “2005, consumers spent over 3 billion on Weight-Watchers products and services” (A).

            Instead of pouring millions of dollars into this program each year, Americans can take charge of their lives and their responsibilities. Instead of wasting money and fruitless items such as weight loss pills and programs, Americans can spend extra money to ensure their food is healthy or they could buy a gym membership. Weight-Watchers commercials are sending the message to viewers, who should not be exposed to them, that thin is beautiful; and the only way to be thin is to spend an obscene amount of money on products such as theirs. These commercials are a negative influence on America’s children and check books.

 

Response 6

Michael Piccone

April 16, 2008

Leviathan

Response 6

Rhetoric is the art form of convincing others of your ideas or beliefs. Some people are good at it and others are not. I happen to be one of the ones who are not. I never have been able to grasp the subtleties of human interactions. It’s just not one of my strong points. For ones rhetoric to be effective and persuading, they must understand what the other side is thinking at the same time. Han Fei Tzu’s first argument in the first paragraph states “the difficult thing about persuasion is to know the mind of the person one is trying to persuade and be able to fit ones words into it.”(World, 558) It is the key to any argument. Sun Tzu said some of the same things in his book the Art of War. It is best to address the counterarguments to your point verses your actual point itself, that way you’re prepared to answer any contention to your point. That is why I think rhetoric is an art form in itself. It takes skills, that some don’t have, in order to do well. You must pick out all of the ideas that might not fit well with yours and come up with a way to turn those ideas down, or make your point look better.

Response 6 Rhetoric

Chris Kurz
ENG 121
Response 6

Rhetoric and the art of persuasion is an art form that not everyone can execute. For some people, they find it boring in its debate-like manner. For others they are too easily trapped in their own words and thus unable to persuade others. There are those, however, that truly excel in the art of rhetoric. We call these people stubborn.
In order to become the best at anything a person must have a little bit of a competitive nature. Otherwise, it is too easy to accept losing or not performing well. True rhetoricians do not accept that they are unable to persuade people. They will learn everything they can about a variety of subjects so they are armed with more intellectual defenses than the people they choose to try to persuade. As Han Fei Tzu wrote, “On the whole, the difficult thing about persuasion is to know the mind of the person one is trying to persuade and to be able to fit one’s words to it” (558). Once you know the mind you are up against it is just a question of manipulating that mind properly. Sometimes this calls for the rhetorician to argue a point that he knows to be false.
This ability to work around may be the whole truth in order to prove a point is key to rhetoric. It also involves being stubborn enough to persuade somebody to listen to an argument even though this argument may be false. Experts in rhetoric are able to pull this off without getting trapped in their appeals to each person’s ego. They are able to manipulate the mind of the person they are trying to persuade by making them feel like they are right even when they are wrong. If a rhetorician does get caught they must staunchly defend their stance or their credibility with that person is forever doomed. This requires even more stubbornness; however, if the person is really good at what they do it is hard to realize they are acting this way. That is enough to make me crazy for the rest of the day.

Han Fei Tzu Analyzed

Kurt Dudley   

April 15, 2008

Response #6

Ariana Paliobagis

            When I read through Han Fei Tzu’s The Difficulties of Persuasion there were many things on my mind.  One of the Things that Han Fei Tzu focuses on is how to persuade someone to do something you want them to do, or in general, how to control someone.  It seemed to me that throughout his entire essay, Han Fei Tzu focuses not on the ability to have people skills and really persuade, but rather he talks about the best ways to manipulate people. 

            One of the first points he brings up is the ability to know a persons character before you try to persuade them.  He points out clearly that, “If the person you are trying to persuade is out to establish a reputation for virtue, and you talk to him about making a fat profit, then he will regard you as low-bred, accord you a shabby and contemptuous reception, and undoubtedly send you packing.”(558)  What Tzu means by this is when one is trying to persuade someone, they must look at the morals of the person.  Someone with pure intentions is not going to do anything to hurt other people in order to excel themselves.  However, someone who mearly pretends to be a philanthropist may only be trying to help themselves.  It reminds me of when rich people claim to be philanthropists by donating a lot of money to charity, but in the end, they write it off on their taxes and end up making money in the process.  Their heart may have been in the right place but sometimes, the person clearly knows in their mind that it will pay off to help other people financially.  The true philanthropist however, will donate their time, money and soul to other people without wanting anything in return.

Appendix of Materials

Kirsten Jensen

English 121

Appendix of Materials

April 14, 2008

 

The Biggest Loser Couples

 

I have currently been watching the show The Biggest Loser Couples, and would like to base my essay on the concept of this show.  This is a TV show that takes obese people, whose lives are threatened by being overweight and transforms their lives into healthier ways of living.  There are two trainers, Bob and Jillian, who teach them how to effectively exercise, build confidence in themselves, and show them the benefits of eating healthier.  It is not about being stick skinny but instead about leading a healthy life.  The following is a synopsis of the show from nbc.com:

 

“The Biggest Loser: Couples”

An all-new twist shakes up the fifth season of “The Biggest Loser,” heightening the emotion and tension in the competition. For the first time ever in the history of the show, teams of two will compete against each other rather than individuals. Nine of the ten teams – including a mother and son, husband and wife, a divorced couple, best friends, brothers and former football teammates — already have a special bond so they’re playing not only for themselves, but also for their loved one. One team, however, will be made up of two complete strangers who don’t meet until they are surprised with the news they’re being paired together.

Alison Sweeney (NBC’s “Days of our Lives”) hosts the popular weight loss series, and contestants work out under the supervision of professional trainers Bob Harper and Jillian Michaels.

The first reality series in which everybody “loses,” “The Biggest Loser” challenges and encourages overweight participants to undergo physical makeovers, without any kind of surgery, in a safe and recommended manner through comprehensive diet and exercise as they compete for a grand prize of $250,000.

The series has become a worldwide hit airing in over 90 countries and produced in 25 countries. It has produced a New York Times best-selling book series with four titles currently and a fifth book slated to hit stands in March 2008. The show also has two #1 selling fitness DVDs, with two more DVDs available on December 18, 2007, as well as a burgeoning online lifestyle club www.thebiggestloserclub.com.

“The Biggest Loser: Couples” is a production of Reveille LLC, 25/7 Productions and 3Ball Productions. Ben Silverman (NBC’s “The Office,” “Ugly Betty”), Dave Broome (“A Model Life with Petra Nemcova,” “Tsunami Aid: A Concert of Hope”), JD Roth (“Age of Love,” “Beauty and the Geek”), Todd A. Nelson (“Unan1mous,” “Beauty and the Geek”) and Mark Koops (“American Gladiators,” “Shear Genius”) serve as executive producers.

Response 6- Power of Persuasion

Kirsten Jensen

English 121

Response 6

April 16, 2008

Power of Persuasion

            The power of persuasion is such a big part of our society today.  Sometimes your voice is the biggest tool to success.   A person’s voice can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing, it just depends what the person puts their power of persuasion to use for.  As
Han Fei Tzu said it all depends in your audience and playing up to their best interests.  If a person can use their audience’s best interests to their advantage then success is quite likely especially in the ruthless field of business.  Business is one of those careers that depend so greatly on your powers of persuasion and the way you voice your assets.  Unfortunately lying can become a key component to how the “deal” will play out; this is where I lack because I am the world’s worst liar.  The card game BS is not for me! This is one of the reasons I am going into the medical field; don’t get me wrong it has its faults but it is based more on the facts rather than how well you can impress the boss of a big company that your business is trying to win over.  However, the power of persuasion can be used for good causes.  Persuading someone the benefits of improving their health, going to college, or other beneficial decisions could change a person’s life. Han Fei Tzu says “It is not difficult to know a thing; what is difficult is to know how to use what you know” (Tzu, 560).  In other words, it’s not about what you know but how you use what you know.  Everyone can take this idea and decide how they are going to benefit themselves or someone else through the power of persuasion.

I am going to become a professional in the health profession and persuade people to lead healthier lives so that they live longer.  How are you going to use the power of persuasion?

Art as a Form of Expression

Kurt Dudley

For my appendix materials I am going to use information from Mo Tzu and Rhetoric.  Along with this I will provide detailed backgrounds on various artists such as Van Gogh.  I plan on arguing against the suppression of art back in Mo Tzu’s times, and I also want to examine the way that art is viewed in current times.

            However, because Mo Tzu is only against music, I plan to stretch my topic beyond that.  This is why I will be examining things such as the suicide of Vincent Van Gogh, and compare that to the more recent death of singer/songwriter Kurt Cobain.  I think that the two artists, although very different mediums, deserve justification, and the way that people judge art in modern times has a lot to do with feelings rather than politics. 

            Back in the time of Mo Tzu, things were controlled by the government, and thus censored for the public.  In recent times though, we have many more freedoms when it comes to expressing ourselves through various mediums.  If Mo Tzu would have opened his narrow mind for just a second, he would have realized that even though he was not performing music, he was writing which is a form of expression.  And all humans need expression because it is as good as a basic need.  Humans need that connection with others and Mo Tzu got to write, why can’t there be other forms of expression also?

Sources

Mo Tzu, Against Music

Various Arts By Vincent Van Gogh, Kurt Cobain, and Don Mclean

Grapes of Wrath appendix

Ryan Haidle

English 121

April 13, 2008

Appendix for the Grapes of Wrath

The plot of Steinbeck’s work of art is rooted in the historical and social events of 1930s America, specifically the environmental disaster coined the Dust Bowl. Drought had been a serious problem for the Great Plains region of the United States for many decades prior to the 1930s. In the late 1880s, the land began to be settled by sharecroppers for agricultural purposes, but a particularly severe drought in late 1800’s brought such widespread crop destruction that, in some areas, as many as 90 percent of the settlers abandoned their claims. During this drought period came several reports of dust clouds covering the land, suffocating livestock and impeding visibility. In the early twentieth century, greater rainfall and the replacement of bare fields with sod helped restore the agricultural productivity of the Plains states. Meanwhile, poor farming techniques of numerous sharecroppers had decimated the agricultural capacity of the land. The harsh cotton crops were also robbing the soil of all its nutrients. These two conditions combined to make it difficult for farmers to bring in a profitable crop.

Due to these harsh conditions, the Joad family decides to start a journey across the U.S. in search of work in California. Rumors said that there were many jobs available at the grape plantations there. On the journey the family encounters several hardships. During the trip, the family fights starvation, loses loved ones, and everyone struggles to stay alive. This demonstrates what some families went through during the Great Depression.

The main characters are Tom Joad, Jim Casy, Ma Joad, and Pa Joad. These four characters lead the rest of their family across the nation on their journey for work. Tom Joad is the main character. Throughout the entire novel, Tom shows growth and education through experience. Jim Casy is a former preacher who travels with the Joads. His main job throughout the novel is to listen and try to help the family out as much as possible. Ma Joad is the backbone of the family. Her main goal is to make it to California without breaking the family apart. Pa Joad is a sharecropper whose land has just been foreclosed on by the bank.

Sources

The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck

Gin Lane and Beer Street, by William Hogarth

Unknown on other Sources

Response 5

Kirsten Jensen

English 121

Response 5

April 11, 2008

            For the cultural essays that we have to write, I want to do the TV show The Biggest Loser and how obesity affects America today. The fact that thousands of Americans are dying from obesity, when a few simple changes could be made to their everyday routines without too much trouble, is sad.  Simply applying the “everything in moderation” plan to their diet could greatly change their lives; they do not have to give up all the food they love just eat in smaller portions and eat fatty foods less regularly.  Another easy factor to incorporate into their diets is simply eating breakfast, because skipping breakfast can actually make you gain weight.  When you eat breakfast you start up your metabolism for the day.  Exercise is another component that could be easily added to the everyday routine.  Just a half-hour of intense activity each day could do wonders to the waistline, and exercise also gives you more energy for your other daily activities.  Being healthy needs to be number one on the list for Americans, otherwise they will not be alive for their other goals.

            We currently had to read about Mo Tzu’s strong dislike for music.  I personally could not imagine our lives today without music.  It motivates me while I am running and studying, not to mention just helps with emotions sometimes.  There is always a song that I can relate to no matter how I am feeling.  Music is not a hindrance to Americans; if used right we could be a more productive country. It also helps some poverty stricken people who are musically talented make something of their lives. Music is definitely a great attribute to our society.

Response 5

Mike Dvorak

Paliobagis

4/11/08

Response 5

 

The Socratic Method

The Socratic method is a style of philosophical questioning demonstrated here in Gorgias.  It is a method of questioning, usually involving two people, in which one person poses a series of questions for the acceptance or rejection of another.  This method allows a person to fully explore the moral beliefs or constructs of the other.  I think the Socratic method is a very effective method of argument because it does not rely on putting forth its own truth rather it works to pick apart others ideals or beliefs.  It can be a useful tool in the search for truth, but it can only identify something as being truth or not, it cannot put forth ideas of its own.

The Socratic method seems to be able to abuse the art of language.  Allowing a person to simply agree or disagree separates the world into a black and white view that is perhaps less accurate and much more easily found incorrect.  Also, in questioning another about his or her own beliefs, it is possible to set up a series of questions that, through the trickery of language, lead to a conclusion that was not intended by the questioned party.

The Socratic method is a useful tool in determining truth but it can also be abused as a form of language manipulation rather than a test of logic.  If both parties understand its strengths and weaknesses the Socratic method can be an excellent mode for communicating ideas to one another as well as testing those ideas for cohesiveness.

Music for Everyone

Ryan Haidle

English 121

April 10, 2008

Response 5

Mo Tzu said that music distracts society form getting their duties completed. Exactly how does music become a distraction? Music has the exact opposite effect on some people. For some people music motivates them to work harder and get things done. Music becomes a way for people to relax and put forth effort that isn’t even realized by the worker. Without music the worker may be thinking about how they don’t like the job that they are doing, or all the other thing they could be doing. Tzu needed to be open-mined when it came to expressing his opinions. His argument would have been more effective if he would have showed both sides of it. Since the argument was so one-sided, it had no effect on me.

It seems that Tzu disregards the middle class, where they would have normal lives and be able to listen to music. I think that Tzu may have been very narrow-minded, since he completely excluded the middle class. He only talks about the lower and upper class. It seems to me that he is jealous of the upper class. I think if Mo Tzu would have been wealthy he wouldn’t have had such a problem with music.

The arts today are more easily available to everyone. If Tzu were to be alive today, would he have the same opinion about music? I think he would have changed his opinion because it is available to everyone.

Questions for Plato

1. Gorgias says that one must use rhetoric fairly, as it is a powerful, but I was wondering if Gorgias would always use it fairly. It seems as if one who was very good at this type of rhetoric could easily abuse it.

2. Doesn’t it seem inappropriate for one who is only good at rhetoric to be working in other fields? I think this can be revealed in our time by politicians, or probably lobbyists. The lobbyists are very good at arguing in defense of the bill they want passed, but they aren’t always that knowledgeable about it, or if they are, they may be trying to get it through because there is a lot of money involved for them, and not too many benefits for society. I think it would be much better if rhetoric was used in conjunction with other skills.

Mo Tzu Questions

Chris Kurz ENG 121 4/9/08

After reading Mo Tzu I was left with many questions but since two will suffice, here they are:

1.) Was Mo Tzu saying that distractions in general were what should be abolished?

2.) What would happen in society if there was a prohibition on the arts?

 

Writers Block

Drew Walters

          

  Define the issue

·         Writers block is simply struggling to start a paper, or coming to a standstill in the midst of a paper. ·         It often appears as a blank page, and after hours of staring it still looks like a blank page·         Often anxiety is the cause of this “blank page”Plan·         Recognize Ito       Constantly Second guessing word usageo       “The Worm of Doubt”-Lack of confidence, motivation, or experience ·         The Sourceo       Most cases can be linked to a single instance, usually one of disappointment  or rejectiono       Hemingway and “The Wall of Rejection”o       Concern of acceptanceo        Blocks exist because writers care about their writingo       Writers care about their writing because they feel a need/want to write, there is no need to look for validity elsewhereo       “If you want to write, that’s enough [reason]”·         Attacko       Up to us how we let these rejections and doubts affect uso       Break down rejections and doubts§         Question source of objection – no single opinion is that important§         Question Reality of personal expectations·         Bridge the Gapo       After recognizing the problem, overcome the block§         Try working on something different§         Take a walk, get mind off of what your writing about§         Free write§         Listen to new musicWorks citedhttp://www.starrigger.net/block.htm – “Dealing with Writers Block” by Jeffrey A. Carverhttp://kingprofits.com/lan/news_35279.html – “Breaking Through Writers Block” by Marige O’brien’shttp://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/567/01/ – “Writers Block/Writers Anxiety” by Sean M. Conrey

http://www.43folders.com/2004/11/18/hack-your-way-out-of-writers-block – “Hack your

Machiavelli Freewrite/Questions

1.       Can a person be respected without being cruel?

2.       Can a passive person be a leader if they enact cruel punishments for uprisings in the society?

When we did a free write at the beginning of this section, I wrote about what a government should have, and mainly what qualities a leader should posses. And one of the main qualities I thought that a leader of anything should have is that they have to be respectable. If there is no quality about them that the society can respect, and then their reign is going to be fruitless, similar to Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill for all of eternity, always fighting against the forces of gravity. Anyways, when it comes to Machiavelli, I think that his description of a leader being cruel to be effective in his ways is in a ways the same as respect. If a leader is cruel, the population will have respect for him, but that respect isn’t a good kind of respect; it is basically fear. This kind of leader will either be revolted against or assassinated, in a government in this era.  In a utopia, which will happen when pigs fly, a leader will gain the respect of his citizens by acting the way a respectable leader acts, unbiased, confident (but accepts criticism), approachable, aggressive (but not overly), intelligent, thinks through situations in a timely manner, and thinks about what will happen when different acts are put into effect. I am sorry to say, but this reminds me of the King of Rohan in Lord of the Rings. He had most of these qualities, but the most important one was that he was human, not a god of some sort. His people could relate to him and his life, and this in turn made him respectable. Now that I have ranted, I am going to finish this before I can rant even more.

Free Write-Machiavelli

Chris Kurz

ENG 121

March 18th, 2008

Questions

1.) Does a leader need to be selfish in order for his/her country to be taken seriously and advance in worldwide society?

2.) Machiavelli says that friendships or deals that come through bribery cannot be trusted. What does that say about controlling interest groups and major donors to modern day campaigns?

Oh crap! I woke up in the middle of the night and remembered I forgot to do my free write. So now it is 5:30 a.m., and I am thinking about Machiavelli. He would have a much harder time trying to get things together in the dark to write at this time of day.

Anyway, what struck me as interesting in Machiavelli’s writing was the amount of thought that he put into his ideas. He obviously spent a great deal of time trying to wrap his mind around the concept of love and fear as related to how his society functioned. I wonder if he ever had aspirations of becoming a politician but could not go through with it because he felt the need to be loved too much. Sometimes I wonder if some of the pieces we read are written more about the author but disguised as an essay about their society or surroundings.

Most of Machiavelli’s ideas are very astute observations about what it must feel like be a politician. For all the heat that politicians take from the press, the public and others, think about what it must be like to try and sleep at night for them. Throughout the course of the day you are placed in the position of making decisions. Once those decisions have been made, then they are questioned. Next people form judgements about you based on the decisions. Nevermind that the people may not be fully informed about whatever issue is at hand, they will crucify the decision maker for not agreeing with their point of view. It is hard not to want to be feared rather than loved. It is much easier to piss everyone off than it is trying to please everybody.

Probing Freewrite;)

Keely Boulton

1.) Throughout “The Prince”, Machiavelli seemed to say that it was alright for a prince to do immoral and unjust things in order to achieve his goals, while he must stay publically above reproach.  Should this be true of any ruler?

2.)  Machiavelli alludes to the idea that sometimes good can come our of evil deeds.  Is it possible for good to come from evil actions?

What struck me most about Machiavelli was his pinpoint on the corruptness of human nature.  He seems to point out well that we are all flawed in some way, and that sometimes it is neccesary formen to be immoral.  But I do not think, nor have I seen examples in my life, of good things coming from evil actions.  For example if someone tells a lie that may cover up thier wrongdoings for the moment, the lie will eventually come back to them in a negative way.  If we cheat on an exam we will most likely get a better grade, but this does not mean that we will not be expelled from that class or even school.  I would not agree with Machiavelli in his view that good can come from evil or that it is right for a prince to act wrongly behind is people’s back.  There is no reason this should happen and I think when it does happen, somehow those decisions will affect them in a negative way. 

Machiavelli Free Write

Kirsten Jensen10 minute free writeMachiavelli One of Machiavelli’s points in his reading, states that you have to be mean and selfish in order to be a great leader.  He says no one got anywhere being nice and certain sacrifices have to be made.  Following your morals and what is true to your heart, is going to get you a lot farther than manipulating people. Manipulating people may get you successful real quick but it’s not worth the people that you hurt and the big crash at the end that leads you worse off than if you got successful the honest way.  On the contrary, not everyone can be pleased when a goal is trying to be accomplished. Therefore you have to be strong and stand your ground but at the same time faithful to your morals and what your heart tells you is the best. People shouldn’t be allowed to walk all over you and should respect you at the same time.  This is the way to help you be most successful and still be self-satisfied. 

Machiavelli Free Write

Mike Dvorak

Paliobagis

Writing 121

3/17/08

Questions

 

1. Machiavelli seems to believe that stability in a government is extremely important; how is this view affected by the time period he lived in and is it still applicable today?

 

2. Machiavelli seems to believe that the ends justify the means; do you agree or disagree and why?

 

The stability of governments during the life of Machiavelli held great sway over the countries ability to defend itself as well and have a functioning economy.  We continue to see this problem in third world nations, especially in Africa, with the constant civil war and strife, but as nations have stabilized the longevity of a leaders term becomes less and less important and can even become detrimental.  The President of the United States changes office at least every 8 years and no person may hold more than those 8 years in office.  The United States employs this style of leader because it allows them to more directly address the issues the citizens of that nation bring forth.  Finally, the use of a democratic system, where power is spread through many individuals, has less of a requirement for long lasting leadership because the other branches can pick up the temporary slack created by the change in leadership.

Commas, not comas

To summarize the report on commas I present you all with a basic outline that I followed and some web sources that were helpful in compiling my report.

I. Problems with comma usage

a. Improper usage

b. Text messaging era ignores commas

c. Learning proper usage can be boring

II. Remedies

a.Proper usage

1. Commas that separate independent clauses

2. Commas that separate items in a series

3. Commas set off long introductory clauses and phrases

4. Commas that separate descriptive modifiers

5. Commas that set off parenthetical expression

6. Commas used when absence of a pause causes confusion

7. Commas used to set off participle phrases that modify some part of an independent clause

b. Improper usage

1. Comma splice

2. Do not use a comma to introduce a subordinate clause

3. Do not use a coma to separate a noun or pronoun from its reflexive

III. Areas for solutions

a. Writing Center

b. tip sheets

c.  Practice

Sources

http://www.esf.edu/writingprogram/tipsheets/comma.htm

http://www.englishchick.com/grammar/grpunc.htm#comma

http://www.bartelby.com/141/strunk.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17

Response #4

Michael ChoppAriana PaliobagisENG 1213/3/08Response #4             Human self-interest plays a huge role in how our government works today. That is why we have republican, democratic, green, and so on political groups to classify our personal wants and needs from the government. It is in our best interests and instinct to go with what we think is best for us. Directly in government, our President makes decisions based from what he feels is right for himself, and our country.            Machiavelli speaks out when he states “must therefore take into account the unsavory characteristics of real human beings: ambition, cruelty, greed, gullibility, and incompetence” (130). When trying to be elected into office, the candidates try to find the little things that will put them over the top, all the while showing true competitiveness in their approach to the other candidates. Once in power, the ambition is still there, but greed sets in and can lead to more personal governmental decisions rather than for the country.            Hobbes, however, has a very extreme view on how a government should be. His writings spoke out about “the law of the jungle”, in which only the strongest can survive. I feel he means everyone is out to be the best, leading to clashing among the people and even violence. Hobbes believed the people needed to be governed, as they cannot on their own. Anarchy is a dangerous thing. Chaos would be everywhere with it. 

Response #4

Mary Alice Dewees

English 121

Response 4

Human self-interest is inescapable!

Whether people realize or not, human self-interest is impossible to escape. Every person acts in a way to achieve personal gain. People work to have money to buy goods, they have hobbies to add excitement or joy to their lives, so it can also be said self-interest also plays a role in the way our social contracts/governments work.

Machiavelli expresses this opinion when he writes about the role a prince should play. Besides being hated, the prince should do anything to keep his power. He states, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred, as is noted” (135). A wise prince is one who acts in a way that he sees as best not relying on other people to guide him in his decisions. Machiavelli confidently justifies selfish actions in order to gain power.

Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, goes further to explain that because people only care for themselves any form of government is preferred. “Hobbes therefore opposed revolution in any form, not because he thought kings ruled by divine right but because he believed that authoritarian governments were necessary to keep human beings’ worst impulses under control.”(37) Hobbes is implying that because of this deep seeded need for self satisfaction social contracts must exist.

In conclusion, it is shown that human self-interest plays not only a role in how leaders rule but also why people must be ruled. While both may be a bit extreme in their views, they do have some validity. People inherently commit acts that will hopefully benefit their lives, sometimes at the expense of others. It is a part of human nature.

Response 4

Mike Dvorak

Professor Paliobagis

Writing 121

3/3/08

Response 4

The government is made up of a body of people; people chosen for their ability to lead our country towards some positive end, be it wealth, power, or peace.  The people of that nation trust that the power being given over will not be abused. Can the government be trusted with this must responsibility, or any citizen for that matter?  Humanity, like all other living entities on earth, are hardwired with a sense of self-preservation that is impossible to deny, “that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation, (Machiavelli 131)” leaving us with one simple principle to base out government on.  If a person sees personal gain from doing what is right, or at least what is not wrong, they will act accordingly.  The market economy we currently employ is a great example of how this need for self-preservation can be put to use in order to better humanity through competition rather that turning us against each other to no one’s benefit.  Turning competition inwards allows us to set up some sort of rules that will benefit this natural selection process.  John Rawls spoke of this idea in Two Principles of Justice saying that all people should have the right to attain any office, and there for any income level, but that competition would most fairly decide who deserves the benefits of that office.  This form of government, as well as economic system, has benefited the United States greatly, where many statuses are attainable but competition is fierce.

Role of self-interest in government

Ryan Haidle

English 121

Ariana Paliobagis

 

Response 4

 

Although it is clear that restoring a sense of community and citizen trust in government is critical, it is not as clear how this goal can be accomplished. While it is relatively easy to prescribe enhanced performance and responsiveness as the cure, depending on the nature and focus of such effort, government actions may actually result in a further erosion of citizen trust and sense of community. The issue is complex, involving not only the nature of citizen trust and governmental performance and responsiveness but the purposes and responsibilities of government itself.  Thomas Hobbes talked about how it is a constant war in the state of nature.  He states that it is impossible to have justice at a state of nature.  The role of human self interest in government is also a constant war.  Hobbes states, “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent: that nothing can be unjust.” (41)  He described this was as the “Laws of Nature.”

Also, governmental responsiveness to the public interest is particularly important at the community level.  Rawls said, “One is not allowed to justify differences in income or organizational powers on the ground….” (357)  I think what Rawls meant was in order for government to be successful they must be able to have the same justices for every individual.  There can’t be any variation in the justice system based on income or class level.  It is vital that everything remains set in stone no matter what the situation is.

Thesis Statements By Carley Buttelman

Carley ButtelmanEnglish 121Presentation The opening is a critically important part of essays. It’s where the reader will meet the thesis statement. The thesis is the single most important element of a formal essay. It will tell the reader exactly what you will discuss by previewing your major points or clarifying your overall assessment of the text that you’re analyzing.  It needs to be clear, concise, and goes beyond that fact and becomes an idea that needs to be supported with opinions and evidence. What happens when you fail to define your thesis?·       The paper will lack unity –A unified essay is one in which all of your arguments, directly or indirectly, support your thesis.·       The writer will not know what arguments to support·       The writer may begin to ramble – some of your evidence may be irrelevant to your thesis statement. They might also contradict some of the points.Why do Writers struggle with thesis statements?·       They are difficult to write!·       They don’t have enough support·       Not sure what the assignment is really about – if you’re confused on an assignment ask your teacher for help. It’s really hard to write an essay, and a topic sentences, when you don’t understand what you need to be writing.·       Writers do procrastinate meaning they don’t give all their attention to their essay and most importantly, their thesis.Why does it need to be improved?·       To provide your reader with a “guide” to your argument in which you want to improve on in every paper.·       A good thesis statement can mean a better grade- If you have a solid thesis statement and you support accurately, there is no doubt that you will receive a better grade than a paper with a bad thesis.·       Thesis statements are used everywhere and it’s important to understand them. How do writers write a good thesis?·       It should be placed in the introduction·       Make sure it’s in a form of a statement, not a question. –“Can we save the Amazon rainforest?”·       Don’t go overboard – It should express your true opinion and not an exaggerated version of it.·       Your thesis should cover exactly the topic you want to talk about, no more and no less.·       Many good thesis statements include words such as “because,” since,” “although,” “unless,” and “however.”·       Make sure to question your ideas. Ask yourself “why do I believe this statement is true?” “What have I seen or done or read or heard that caused me to make this statement?” ·       Avoid phrases like “I believe,” “I think,” “The purpose of this paper is,” etc.·       It’s ok if it’s “short and sweet”·       Needs to be specific – Sometimes they get to broad·       It’s ok to change it ones you have started your paper.However, an argument requires more than a good thesis. A writer also needs to provide supporting ideas and evidence. Supporting your thesis is extremely important and needs to be done if the essay is going to be effective. How do you support your thesis?·       Write several topic sentences that support it – ( A topic sentences states the paragraphs main point it’s trying to make) This will help you uncover every major idea you need to argue or explain. These topic sentences should represent what you believe to be the component parts or your thesis·       Once you have written down all your topic sentences – put them in a meaningful order. Select an order that best fits the nature of the paper·       Don’t be afraid to rewrite topic sentences!If one has written a strong thesis it makes writing a essay a whole lot easier, because it helps you see how the whole argument should be organized.  But students still turn in essays with weak or absent or confusing thesis statements with no support.  It would be like starting a trip without a clear sense of where you’re going. My advice is start with a good thesis, and build your paper on it.  Examples of Thesis StatementsNOT GOOD-There are many cause of anorexia nervosa.FIXED – Anorexia nervosa has both emotional and social causes which work hand in hand.NOT GOOD – Soap operas are not great drama, but they do reveal some of the problems in our society.FIXED – Soap operas reveal how real people deal with serious problems such as drug abuse and alcoholism.NOT GOOD – There are some negative and positive aspects of the Banana Herb Tea Supplement.FIXED – Because Banana Herb Tea Supplement promotes rapid weight loss that results in the loss of muscle and lean body mass, it poses a potential danger to customers.

Sources

http://www.umuc.edu/ewc/onlineguide/chapter2/chapter2-10.shtml

http://www.rpi.edu/web/writingcenter/thesis.html

http://ohiolink.edu/~sg-ysu/draft.html

Response 4

Kirsten JensenEnglish 121Response 4March 3, 2008Role of Human Self-interest in Government/Social Contracts            Government is a powerful and important concept to both past and present societies.  Past societies set forth many ideas of rights and wrongs to serve as guidelines for rulers.  Machiavelli is known for his harsh ways and dishonesty in order to improve the uses of power for rulers that he advised. His beliefs were that you could only be great in history if you were selfish and no one that was peaceful and fair was successful.  He believed that rulers must be cruel, dishonest, and manipulative in order to be effective rulers to their people. If this is what it takes to have an effective government then why have a government at all? People shouldn’t have to fear their ruler in order for leaders to be effective and successful. What defines success for a ruler? Is it having your people so scared of you that they kiss your feet at the snap of a finger or is it improving your country through fair order and justified means of enforcement? I fully agree that if someone commits a crime they need to pay for their wrong actions but the consequence should also fit the severity of the crime. Consequences should not be decided on past crimes but they should be taken into account so that consistency and fairness can be displayed. Hobbes believes that we are evil and government must be enforced in order to keep human nature under control. I do not believe that we are evil however I do believe in government and set laws to maintain order to some degree. Once again I will say how important individual cases are based on what the person themselves did not what a set of guidelines in a law book say has to be one’s punishment. People make mistakes and yes they have to be punished to some degree for their wrong doing but the fact that they are human also needs to be taken into account.  If everyone was perfect our country would not be as successful as it is today; success is the flower that blooms from mistakes, the seed.  Humans are not perfect and have some traces of evil in them but I believe there is better in them than evil; Hobbes believes it is all evil. This explains his similar beliefs to people fearing their government to a certain point in order to keep their behavior under control.  When people are treated with kindness and respect they are more likely to do what you want, this is evident in my everyday life. When I nicely ask my little brothers to do something, nine times out of ten they will do it.  When I rudely as them by yelling or screaming, they are less likely to do what I want them to do. Most people are that way, just treat them with kindness and respect and order will be held.  Some may say I’m being too sensitive but I strongly believe in what I say. However, I know some enforcement is necessary to maintain control which needs to be done with assertiveness and confidence; it doesn’t mean harsh measures need to be used.  I guess my idea of the role of human self-interest in governments is divided in that between the leader and their people. The leader needs to have his people’s best interest taken into account for when he is making decisions that affect his country.  The leader should not be selfish but also be true to himself and what he really believes is the right thing for his people.  When the people elect their leader they should be selfish and pick one who has the qualities that they themselves want their country to be run on.  A small amount of selfishness is okay but too much can ruin someone.  With all of this being said the incompatibility of government and complete fairness just makes one think about the positive aspects of government and the things they have to be thankful for.  

Thesis/Focus Presentation

Keely Boulton

English Presentation

February 29, 2008

I.  Defining the Problem

            Many people have a hard time narrowing their ideas into a clear and definite thesis statement.

            -Being stuck in the thesis statement blues can be caused by the following:

                        1. Poor knowledge of the topic you wish to write about.

                        2. Not being able to focus on a specific aspect of the subject you are         writing about (being to broad and general).

                        3.  Having an unclear understanding of what you want to write about exactly.

II.  How can the Problem be Remedied? 

            -It is helpful to know the definition of a thesis, so: A thesis statement is a specific declaration that summarizes (an argument really) the point of view you will express in your paper. It is the basic stand you take, the opinion you express, and the point you make about your narrowed subject. It’s your controlling idea, tying together and giving direction to all other elements in your paper. Your primary purpose is to persuade the reader that your thesis is a valid one.

            - Here are some steps you can take to build a solid thesis and make it clearer:

                        1. Your thesis should be specific.  If the ideas you present are general and numerous, chances are your reader will not be able to understand your point. A good thesis statement supplies a specific subject and a clear direction for your paper.

                        2.  Your thesis should be restrictive.  Think of your thesis subject as a single chocolate chip inside a cookie.  Your job as a writer is not to discuss all the issues in your subject, only a very small bit of it.  Try to limit yourself to only discussing one or two issues in an essay, or you will get lost in the information, as will your reader.

                        3.  Your thesis should be unified and express one major idea or purpose.  Do not try and cover every aspect of your subject, EVER! When you try and do this your paper becomes muddy and you, as well as your reader, will not be able to pick out the argument you are trying to make through your paper.

                        4.  Do not think of your thesis as:

                                    ~A promise or statement of purpose.

                                    ~A topic or subject by itself.

                                    ~A question

                        5. Your thesis statement should be arguable in both your favor, as well as in the favor of an opposing opinion.  Every sub point you put into your paper should somehow confirm your thesis, show the opposing argument (without weakening your own) and relate back to your thesis statement in some way.

 —–Overall, just remember to try and stay focused when you are developing your thesis statement.  Focus on issues that are important to you and that you are interested in writing about.  When you get lost, try and brainstorm or just get away from your paper for a while and come back when you are ready to focus again… Basically… just K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid).:)——– For extra help try these websites (my sources): 

            http://theliterarylink.com/thesis.html

            http://ozline.com/electraguide/thesis.html

            http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/thesis_statement.shtml

            http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/Thesis.html

            Also, use the writing center on campus, its an amazing tool available to us!!!!