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.

 

Social Devistation

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

4/16/08

Response 6

All of the texts, Achebe, Han Fei Tzu, and Cicero all deal with and discuss how powerful language is and how it can be used in everyday life. It also discussed the use of rhetoric language and how using rhetoric in our speech shows intelligence as people.

In Achebe’s text he writes, “language is the primary agent to social cohesion” (592). He also states that “its corruption and abuse carry the potential for devastating consequences” (592). These two quotes are extremely important because they are referring to how society would be without the use of language. The ability to communicate with one another is the reason that mankind is such a dominant race (that and opposable thumbs), and the use of rhetoric comes standard with communication. Achebe is arguing that we need to use language to unite the human race and promote the factious, so consequently rhetoric is needed to do these things. If rhetoric in language is used primarily to promote the fictitious, there will be no social cohesion and it will have devastating consequences.

Examples of using language in a non positive way is cursing and promoting the fictitious. Dropping the F bomb, flipping the middle finger, or any lie is all using language in a way that it shouldn’t be used. As time goes on, more and more forms of language come up. Such as text messaging, verbal language, sign language, and even facial expressions. The use of any type of language, whether it be verbal or non verbal, leads ever so slightly to what Achebe was talking about in his texts. The lack of social cohesion and devastation to the human race.

The Art of Persuasion

 

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

Response 6

16^th of April 2008

The texts of Achebe, Han Fei Tzu and Cicero all talk about the power of language and how it can be used. The use of rhetoric and language in general coincidentally shows our intelligence as humans in general.

Language plays a pivotal role in society, without which our society would be unable to function. Achebe illustrated this point very well in his piece Language and the Destiny of Man. In order for two people to be able to interact properly with each other there needs to be communication present. Not all, but most communication between humans is based on language, may it be written or spoken. Body language and other factors come into play as well, but language makes up the single most important part of communication.

Both Cicero and Han Fei Tzu describe how an argument should be constructed. They describe the principles and rules of composition of arguments in general. I see rhetoric being more of an art form than a science in general. Even though there are many general systems of organizing arguments, there are some people that just have the innate ability to be persuasive. In order to be able to bring forth a well rounded argument it is important to connect with the audience. Making an appeal to the audience’s ethos allows for them to relate to the arguments of the speaker. Naturally politicians need to be very adapt at using rhetoric to persuade people. Cicero shows his skills of persuasion in the Rhetorical Invention. When experiencing a speaker, for example a professor, it often is obvious from the start whether the person is an accomplished public speaker. An accomplished public speaker must be able to bring across their ideas in a concise manner. Politicians need to be well versed in the tools of persuasion in addition to being a good public speaker. In general, how well a person uses language shows from the start. Being able to use rhetoric to bring across your ideas in a coherent and structured manner proves how educated you are in the use of language. Communication skills, writing and oral, are an important part of everybody’s education, they make up one of the most important sections. Without language we would lack a medium to interact with, which would prove detrimental to the workings of society.

Rhetoric

 

Response 6

 

 

Persuasion

 

 The art of persuasion has been around for thousands of years and there is not much to change this. The use of words to convince something upon someone might seem a bit unfair but that is what language is for. To use it in multiple different ways. Although some people may benefit and others will lose something that is just how life goes.

By reading the works of these three authors I have realized that persuasion or rhetoric isn’t set in stone. All those forms are open for opinion. Some might say it is unfair or misleading but personally I think it is great. That someone can be on one side of an argument then just by saying some words in a certain manner the person can have changed their opinion. In the text by Achebe I like how he doesn’t use one example or talk about one aspect of rhetoric but he talks more of how language is able to do this.

            One other aspect of saw in the texts is about how language can be abused. I agree with this statement I think it is easy for people to abuse language but people should have the responsibility to keep it under control. Achebe talks about how more and more people are using language in the incorrect way. I hadn’t though about that until I read it. But the more and more I think about it, I think its true. People don’t speak the way they used to and they almost make language bad. Language should still be a formal means of talking to people or persuading their ideas.

Response#6

Michael Chopp

ENG 121

4/16/08

Response #6

 

                According to Achebe, “language is the primary agent to social cohesion” (592). Also, he argues that “its corruption and abuse carry the potential for devastating consequences.” (592). I believe these two quotes are quite powerful in how our being able to communicate to each other is what can bring unity to a group of people. Without language and some basic form of communication between people, the world would be corrupt.

                Today there are so many different forms of communication. Talking in person, text messaging, sign language, non-verbal gestures, email, letters and so on are all different forms of communication which have evolved how we speak to each other. Being able to communicate has become such a distinguished part of our lives and for the world today. Trading between countries would be nearly non-existent. Learning would be extremely difficult, as one learns to read after they have learned to speak.

                Corruption and abuse to language can lead to consequences. Even as minor as getting grounded for arguing with your parents, any form of word abuse can lead to punishment. Gestures such as using the middle finger can also be used as word abuse and can lead to harassment. Harassment is basically one of the consequences of word abuse. I believe we can avoid word abuse if people realized what they said sometimes to others was hurtful and uncalled for. Our country is smart, and we can limit word abuse if we really tried to.

Being Persuaded

                                                                                                            Emily Zerbel

                                                                                                            April 16, 2008

                                                                                                            English – 121

                                                                                                            Response 6

Persuasion

           

We are reading again parts from Han Fei Tzu, “The Difficulties of Persuasion”.  I think this piece is definitely right on with all the examples Tzu gives on when you are trying to persuade someone and they have to be willing to be persuaded before you even have a chance. Its kind of like when you are teaching someone to learn to ride a bike, they have to want to learn before they can do it for the first time, and then either they can or they cant. It’s just a matter of knowing that there is a possibility for change. Everyone has to keep an open mind and not think the worst of people if they do try and tell you something other than how you truly feel.

           

At the end of this reading Tzu gives a good example on how people should have an open mind about things to be able to be persuaded. “The beast called a dragon can be tamed and trained to the point where you may ride on its back. But on the underside of its throat it has scales a foot in diameter that curl back from the body, and anyone who chances to brush against them is sure to die.” This I believe is saying that you can talk to someone and share the same ideas and be able to go with the same ideas that they have, yet there are others that may not share those same thoughts and they will never have that option.

           

There are people out there that have very closed minds and don’t ever want to change their opinion for anyone, or even listen to others ideas. They are pretty much stuck in their own ways because they believe their way is the best and only way to go. Those kind of people are very hard to have a discussion with, and even harder to debate with. Debating meaning the act of persuasion. Tzu puts it very nicely that there are going to be those people that get hurt, not literally hurt, but the ones that can never persuade the beast. But there will still be the ones that can ride on the back of the beast, those being the ones that share the same thoughts as the beast itself. I also believe this is how Tzu sees all rulers and emperors, people that do not have open minds and are only for what they have always thought. They don’t want to hear what others think because they will do it their own way. 

appendix

Guys…I saved my appendix on my other flash drive that I cannot find…I will retype and post asap!

Response 6

Mary Alice Dewees

Writing 121/response #6

April 16, 2008

Advice and Persuasion

In a day and time when people feel free to give their advice or state their opinions, it is hard to believe there was a time when these acts could cost you your life. Could you imagine the President of the United States killing one of his advisors if they stated something he did not like? Well it is this type of instance that Han Fei Tzu writes about in his piece The Difficulties of Persuasion. Specifically, Han Fei Tzu is addressing how a counselor would go about advising a ruler, and the attention that must be paid to persuading the ruler in just the right way.

While persuading people to see your point of view is never easy, it must have been infinity more difficult in a time when such acts had severe penalties. Han Fei Tzu writes, “If you try to talk to a person into doing what he cannot do, or stopping what he cannot stop, then you will be in danger”(558). Throughout his piece Han Fei Tzu gives ample examples of what can happen when one does not thoroughly know who they are giving advice to. Furthermore, even if one initially earns the respect of his ruler it does not mean it is lasting, “…the fact that he was praised in the early days, and accused of a crime later on, was because the ruler’s love had turned to hate”(561).

Han Fei Tzu had the ability to recognize how complicated it can be to persuade people, especially people of power. Perhaps, one could learn from his ideas on persuasion; “…situation(s) require a thorough understanding of the audience and of how different kinds of advice are likely to be perceived”(557). It could be ventured to say that Han Fei Tzu had great respect and understanding for those for whom he advised and that is something every person from every era could learn from.

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.

Han Fei Tzu vs. Cicero

I have to admit, I wasn’t a big fan of Cicero. He had some interesting ideas, but the way he presented them was not the most effective. It was kind of an interesting concept, in the way that he would talk about something he thought was good or bad, and then he would basically describe it in a scenario situation. He would say that if a person did this, then others would respond in this way, and if a person did this other thing, then others would respond in a different way. It seemed as if he is kind of a negative person, as the scenarios he described almost always ended in a bad way. He doesn’t seem to be a positive person, but I did like his ideas, just not the way they are presented.

However, Han Fei Tzu had some ideas that I thought were very interesting. When I read his second sentence, his idea really hit home with me. He says, “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). This is so true. It does not matter at all, what you say, if it isn’t what the person wants to hear, then they won’t listen. Once you are able to quickly decide what will make a person listen and properly orate it, you will become a very successful speaker. I think this could be tied into my third essay, which I have decided will be utilizing the television show Family Guy. It is relevant in the fact that I think Family Guy is a terrible show and a waste of one’s time, yet, because of the way that the characters are depicted and the way they say things, the show grabs the attention of many people. I definitely think that Tzu will be a good source to use to help me argue my thesis, which will be something like Family Guy is a terrible show that pushes the envelope only to see how far it can go, under the cover that it is comedy. The only reason that people watch it is because the characters know what to say initially to get people to listen, and then they go beyond what is appropriate way too often.

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.

Simply Respect

Samantha Kujala

 4/15/08                                Simply Respect

Han Fei Tzu mentions how you must be cautious of what you say to a ruler in order to not be punished or killed. Except some of the examples he gives seem to be more common sense and that we should be respectful to others. This is not only true for rulers, but for everyone including your close friends. Some thoughts are better kept to yourself.

            Han Fei Tzu says, “If you talk about what he hates, he will suspect you of trying to test his patience” (559). This seems so obvious to me. I know if one of my friends purposely talked about a certain issue that bothered me; it of course will anger me. That is called “picking on that person.” Sure sometimes picking on your friends is just harmless fun as long as you all can laugh about it. Though, doing this with the wrong intentions to purposely annoy someone is just disrespectful and that goes for everyone you communicate with; not just rulers.

            I think Han Fei Tzu did have a deeper meaning to his story. This message is that we should be respectful to one another. Also we should possibly thankful that when we are disrespectful, we should be thankful that our friends do not physically punish us or harshly judge us. More on the topic of persuasion though, being respectful may become more difficult when trying to make a strong point. Sometimes you may be trying to persuade someone to like something they hate and this is not really being respectful of their opinions. I think Han Fei Tzu makes another important point though. This point is that we have to be adaptable to our different audiences. Know who your audience is when you are trying to be persuasive. Like a ruler for example you are going to want to be very cautious of what you say and only say what will make them happy. With someone who is very young, when persuading them you may be more direct giving them cold facts that they do not want to hear but leaves an impression on them to make them believe in what you are saying.

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?

Think Before you speak

Ryan Haidle

English 121

April 15, 2008

Response 6

A language is a system of visual, auditory, or tactile symbols of communication and the rules used to manipulate them. Achebe, Han Fei Tzu, and Cicero were all masters of language. They used language to master the art of persuasion and rhetoric. One problem with language is its possibility of misinterpretation. What someone says can be interpreted in several different ways. 

Chinua Achebe said, “Unquestionably, language was crucial to the creation of society.” (Achebe 593). Since it speech comes so freely, it makes people speak without thinking things through completely. I think speech today gets taken advantage of. When people don’t think before they speak, they often say things that regret later on. If talking was more of a privilege that not everyone possessed, I think people would be more grateful for the gift that they have. If people appreciate things, they tend to use it wisely.

On the other hand, without language society today would be completely different. I can’t imagine life without being able to communicate by means of talking. I am grateful for the ability to talk and use language for the growth and development of society.

Since communicating tends to get taken advantage of so often, it is imperative that everyone thinks before they speak, and only say what they really mean.

Language: The Key to Society

Carley Buttelman

English 121

Mrs. P

Response 6

Language: The Key to Society

            Chinua Achebe says in Language and the Destiny of Man, “Language was crucial to the creation of society. There is no way in which human society could exist without speech.” I try and imagine a world without noise and everyone being deaf. I began to wonder if sign language could have been as powerful as the words we speak every day.  But I truly just don’t believe that anything can be as influential and persuasive as being able to talk!

              Talking is going on constantly throughout our daily lives, but does anyone every consciously think how truly amazing it is. There are over 150,000 words in the Oxford dictionary and we can recognize majority of them (www.slate.com/id/2139611/). Being able to speak is something that gets taken for granted, which is sad because our society would not be where it is today if we were not able to talk. Our lives are based on communication and majority of this is done through speech.  

            It’s also amazing how our language can be taught to others including the youth. Children begin to recognize words like “no, no” in approximately 6 months or their life and beginning speaking around one year of age. How remarkable is that? Your language has to be passed on to the youth for our society to continue to grow!

            So, I completely agree with Chinua Achebe when he says “human society could not exist without speech.”

And the Word Was, What Happened?

 

Language and rhetoric are two parts to the same piece; one enables the other, and they are tools to persuade and understand. The way that these interact with the society among them, is strongly dependent upon the social contract the individuals practice, and the goals that are being sought. The powers of rhetoric and language are indeed important. They help to shape the way that the human primate evolves. Achebe has some beautiful quotes from across the world and generations, they show the reader that the word has had great impact. These myths also reveal a change from past to present, the transition from the word being revered by all to being misused and butchered. This excerpt from Achebe, stats that humans have the ability to,“challenge that peculiar and perilous destiny with an even chance of wresting from it a purposeful, creative existence.” This is what Achebe says sets us apart from other creatures, it is our weapon, and the way that the individual decides to sharpen and use this weapon is reliant upon the personal social contract that the individual believes and practices. For the incentive rhetoric empowers, is the ability to manipulate language to ones own desires. The idea of the control that can be obtained through the use of self-interested rhetoric can be dangerous and socially irresponsible, but as the essay’s on rhetoric have all said so far, if you are good at rhetoric you have the opportunity to achieve much and or deceive, many.

The Power of Words

Few people realize the power that is contained in a simple word or string of words.  Though language is a powerful and useful tool, it has been used more for bad as of late.  As Achebe talks about, language can be twisted to do all sorts of things it was not meant to do.  People these days are not careful with their words and this is why language and words have become meaningless. 

Think of the simple phrase “I love you”.  This is one of the most powerful things a person can say to another person, but in our world it almost means nothing anymore.  Marriage, which used to be sacred and meant to be forever, has become something that is more optional.  When one party or the other is unsatisfied or bored of their partner, then its time to move on to the next and call it quits.  People do not think of the words “till death do us part”, the vows they committed to one another, when they decide to throw in the towel.  “I love you” no longer means I vow to be your and only your until the end of time, its just something we say to anyone we like.  Few people really understand the impact of their words.  Words have become meaningless because we do not even hesitate or think before we let words fly out of our mouths.

As can be seen in political debates and things of the like, words are used to twist the truth.  No more is there one universal truth or moral standard, only a relative truth that is different for every single person.  I am thankful for the ability to speak, but it kills me to see what speech is used for in today’s society.  Speech is freedom we should respect, because as Achebe argues, our society would not have been created without it.  Rhetoric is a powerful tool and one that should be used with all wisdom and integrity.  Treat others as you want to be treated; that includes the using words.  In the movie Open Range, Robert Duval says, “A man’s trust is a hard thing to come by; its not worth losing on hand of cards.” Here he is referring to cheating at cards, but does it not also apply to the words we use when we talk to and about one another?  So are truth and trust not the same?

Word are more powerful than anyone realizes and we would do well to fix our speech.  Think before you speak and remember that every word you say, no matter how small, has an impact on someone whether you know it or not.  No matter what someone has to say, listen and see the power that comes from what they say.  I think words are one of the most powerful tools we have, but the question is, How will each individual choose to use thier words?

 

Appendix Materials

Keely Boulton

Appendix—Rough Draft

ENGL 121

April 14, 2008

Source 1: Mr. Holland’s Opus (Film, 1995)

“Mr. Holland’s Opus is a 1995 drama film in which Richard Dreyfuss plays Glenn Holland, a musician and composer who takes a teaching job to pay the rent while trying to compose one memorable piece of music to make him famous. The plot follows his teaching career over a thirty year span. The film features American history from the 1960s to the 1990s, including the Vietnam War, assassination of John Lennon, and the Watergate scandal. The story also deals with the issues of attitudes towards the deaf and the cutting of arts programs in public schools across the United States” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Holland’s_Opus).

From this film I really want to show the reader that music communicates the American Spirit of music and shows the way music can reach all people no matter what disability or problem they may have. The music does a great job of showing how important music is, and should remain, in education. I will be analyzing how effective the film is at convincing the audience that music should infact stay in school education.

Character List:

Glenn Holland

Iris Holland

Bill Meister

Vice Principal Gene Wolters

Principal Helen Jacobs

Cole Holland

Rowena Morgan

Gertrude Lang

Louis Russ

Bobby Tidd

Source 2: Music of the Heart (Film, 1999)

“This is the true story of Roberta Guaspari Demetras (Streep). By bringing the violin into the lives of children in the New York City public school system, she hopes to brighten their difficult lives. It’s a story of both struggle and hope.

Described in the opening credits as being ‘inspired by a documentary’, the film opens with Roberta having been deserted by her husband and feeling devastated and almost suicidal. Encouraged by her mother, she attempts to rebuild her life and a friend recommends her to the head teacher of a school in the tough New York area of East Harlem. Despite a degree in music education, she has little experience in actual music teaching, but she’s taken on as a substitute violin teacher. With a combination of toughness and determination, she manages to inspire a group of kids, and their initially very skeptical parents. The program slowly develops and attracts publicity.

Ten years later, the string program is still running successfully, but suddenly the school budget is cut and Roberta is out of a job. Determined to fight the cuts, she enlists the support of former pupils, parents and teachers and plans a grand fund-raising concert ‘Fiddlefest’, to raise money so that the program can continue. But with a few weeks to go and all participants furiously rehearsing, they lose the venue. Fortunately,the husband of a publicist friend is a violinist in a string quartet, and he enlists the support of other well-known musicians, including Isaac Stern and Itzhak Perlman. They arrange for the concert to be mounted at Carnegie Hall. Other famous musicians join in the performance, which is a resounding success” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_Heart).

Through this film I want to analyze the way it portrays the importance of music as a part of education. The text is a journey of the way music is ingrained in every heart. Even against surmountable odds the characters are able to become closer and pull through because of music. I think this text is an excellent example of why music is not a waste of time and especially not a waste of school’s money.

Character List:

Roberta Guaspari

Janet Williams

Brian Turner

Assunta Guaspari

Isabel Vasquez

Dorothea von Haeften

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Language: Often Misinterpreted

Bethany Van Dyke

English 121-31

Response Paper 6

April 16, 2008

After reading Achebe, Han Fei Tzu, and Cicero, one common theme is clear: language is powerful and the number one tool for persuasion; but at the same time, it is susceptible to interpretation.  Overall, I believe language is good and useful but one must be careful not to be misled and should take the time to find the true meaning behind both written and spoken words.

One such example of written word that is commonly misinterpreted is a magazine cover.  Although it may not have much written language, it definitely conveys a message and gets a point across (which is a key use of language). Not only are there flashy headlines but a picture to tie the whole cover together.  To me, it is interesting how a simple headline or picture can be interpreted in so many different ways and can influence a person in a positive way, negative way, or both.

In Achebe’s Language and the Destiny of Man, he talks about how “language, like any other human invention, can be abused , can be turned from its original purpose in to something useless or even deadly” (Achebe 597). This idea of language being abused, or misleading, can be directly applied to some magazine covers and the message they convey.  Some topics presented on magazine covers include subjects such as sex, beauty, health (along with many other topics).  These topics are naturally a part of life, and are not bad, but they have the potential to be represented in an unreal or inappropriate manner.  Therefore, like I said earlier, a person must be careful with the things they read/see and be sure to investigate into the true meaning/purpose behind them.

Cultural Text – Atonement

Carley Buttelman

English 121

April14, 2008

Appendix Materials

I will be wring my final paper based on some of the keys ideas of the movie, Atonement. There are many ideas in this movie that relate to what we are talking and reading about in class. I can use texts from Plato and Achebe. My appendix material will be the plot of the movie:

“In England in 1935, precocious 13-year-old Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) lives on her family’s country estate with her mother and sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley). Cecilia is home for the summer from Cambrige where she had been studying with the housekeeper’s son, Robbie (James McAvoy). She and Robbie have an uncertain relationship; neither is willing to act on it but a certain romantic chemistry exists between them. One day, Briony sees from her bedroom window an argument between Cecilia and Robbie at the fountain. Robbie accidentally broke an antique vase and a piece of it fell into the fountain. Angrily, Cecilia stripped to her underwear and dove into the fountain to retrieve it. Briony is confused about the sexual tension between the two of them.

The Tallises are being visited by young relatives from the north — the twins Pierrot and Jackson (Felix and Charlie von Simsin) and their 15-year-old sister, Lola (Juno Temple), whose parents are in the process of divorcing. Leon Tallis (Patrick Kennedy) brings his friend Paul (Benedict Cumberbatch) for dinner. Paul keenly follows Hitler’s political advance and predicts war. He plans to sell chocolate bars to the British military to give to their soldiers. While he tries to amuse Pierrot and Jackson, Paul and Lola flirt.

Embarrassed by his behavior earlier in the day, Robbie tries to write an apology note to Cecilia. One of the drafts includes a sexually charged declaration of his love for her. He then writes a more formal apology he intends to deliver to her. However, he accidentally gives the sexual note to Briony while walking to dinner at the Tallises that night; he gives her the note because he believes it will be less embarrassing if it comes from Briony instead of him. When he realizes what he has done, he calls out to Briony but she is too far away to hear him. Back in the house, she reads the note and is scandalized. She gives the note to Cecilia but later confides to Lola that she believes Robbie is a dangerous sex maniac. Lola has come to her with arm bruises that she accuses her twin brothers of giving to her but Briony ignores them.

Robbie arrives for dinner. He and Cecilia discuss the note and admit their love for one another. They make passionate love in the library but are discovered by Briony. At dinner, it is discovered that Pierrot and Jackson have run away. Everyone looks for them. While looking for them by a creek, Briony stumbles on Lola being raped by someone. He runs away into the darkness. Briony insists to first Lola and then the police that Robbie was the culprit and brandishes the sexual letter to Cecilia as evidence. Only Cecilia protests his innocence. When Robbie returns with the twins, he is arrested for rape. Tried and convicted, he is sent to prison. Four years later he is released into the British army and makes up part of the British Expeditionary Force that is sent to northern France in an attempt to halt the Nazi advance.

In northern France, Robbie and two fellow soldiers attempt to make their way to Dunkirk, where the remnants of the BEF are to be evacuated after the Nazis rout their forces and the French. He has a shrapnel wound in his chest. Several weeks earlier, before he left London, he saw Cecilia again. She remained true to him for four years and begs him to come back to her. She reveals that she has broken contact with her family over her love for Robbie and belief in his innocence. She gives him a photograph of a seaside cottage near Dover that they can retire to. It will give him strength as he struggles towards Dunkirk. Cecilia is a nurse in London. She learns that Briony, now 18 (Romola Garai) has decided not to study at Cambridge and is training to be a nurse herself. Briony knows that Robbie did not rape Lola, that it was Paul — to whom Lola is now engaged and who has become a millionaire selling his candy to the British army. Briony goes to see Cecilia to admit her guilt and state her willingness to do whatever it takes to atone for her sins and clear Robbie’s name. Robbie is in Cecilia’s apartment when she gets there. Although they are angry with her, they tell her what she needs to do to make things right. She agrees, then leaves as Cecilia and Robbie are intimate for one last time before he is shipped to France with the BEF.

In 1999, Briony (Vanessa Redgrave), now in her late seventies and dying of vascular dementia, is a famous novelist. Her new book, __Atonement__, will be published on her birthday. The foregoing narrative had been one she created for her book, as an act of atonement for what she did to Robbie and Cecilia. In real life, she never saw Cecilia after she left the family, and Cecilia and Robbie never had a last tender moment in her apartment before he left with the BEF. Instead, he died at Dunkirk of septicemia, waiting to be evacuated. Cecilia died a few months later when a German bomb burst a water main and flooded the subway tunnel in which she and other Londoners had taken refuge during the Blitz. Briony hopes that, by reuniting them, she gives them the happy conclusion to their lives that they deserved and her readers the hope that everyone needs to survive.

Robbie and Cecilia walk down the beach on a bright, beautiful day. On the steps of the seaside cottage, they look at the beautiful white cliffs, then disappear inside.”

Work Cited

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0783233/synopsis

appendix

“           “”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.”

-http://www.nbc.com/The_Biggest_Loser_5/about/

Thank You For Smoking

 

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

Appendix Materials

14^th of March 2008

The cultural text that I will be using for this essay is the movie Thank You For Smoking. I am going to explore the rhetoric used in the movie. I am going to tie in some of the ideas of rhetoric from Plato’s Gorgias. 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, the main character of Thank You For Smoking, seems to live by this philosophy. The use of language is an important aspect of culture today. Proper use of rhetoric allows us to persuade people in the way that we want. For example, the media uses rhetoric in advertising everyday, in order to persuade us into buying the advertised product.

 

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 Mod 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. 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 then 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.

Work Cited:

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

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.

 

Appendix

Family Guy is an animated television show about a family with many problems that lives in the made up town of Quahog, Rhode Island. It came into existence at the hands of Seth McFarlane for Fox Broadcasting Company in 1999, but it hasn’t gained popularity until more recently, in the past few years. It was actually aired and then cancelled several times until it caught on in the last few years. It may not have come back, but its DVD sales were so large that the producers saw the demand and put it back on the air.

The main character is the dad, Peter Griffin, who may have good intentions but has a hard time getting anything done or doing anything right. He is depicted as an Irish American Catholic, and has a strong Rhode Island accent. His wife, Lois, stays at the house to take care of the kids and to teach the piano, and she has a New York accent. The three kids each have distinct personalities. The daughter Meg is made fun of because she is plain looking and not very popular. The son Chris is fat, not smart, and is kind of considered to be like his dad when his dad was younger. Then there is Stewie, the baby. He is a diabolical child who thinks and speaks like an adult, always planning and scheming things. Finally, there is the dog Brian, who is characterized as a person, walking on two legs and talking, although he is still the family pet.

Overall, I think that Family Guy is a show that pushes the boundaries of what is appropriate on television. This show uses comedy to try and slide this inappropriate material through by saying that since it is funny, they can say whatever they want. It is full of all kinds of innuendos and things that normally wouldn’t be said, but for the point of comedy, it is flaunted. It is just an odd show with a bad scheming baby and a dog that is portrayed as a human.

 

Antonette Lininger

04-14-08

Appendix Materials

So I want to explore human sexuality and the part it plays in society today and how it has transpired over time. Sexuality, and its role in development and why it is a necessity and instinctual. I want to discover why it is looked down upon and discriminated against, and what part of the social contract it violates and why. I what to urge my reader to believe in the value of expressing yourself and the fact that being comfortable with your sexuality is important in the forming of a balanced person. Hopefully to encourage expression, while realizing the way that rhetoric is used and how to recognize it, and why sexuality should not be uncomfortable or odd. I am playing with the idea because of the way we have evolved. Our human interaction has diminished greatly in quantity, and the lack of such is starving the soul of animalistic instinct, and it can not express itself. Creating disorder and harm or turning sexuality and the need of expression into a secret, were the need to conceal and personalize is the way of expression. There has been a sexual revolution.

Exploration is what humans do.

 

At what cost do we conceal sexuality, and what is the cost of flaunting in a society like ours today. Does prostitution hold the role of a solution. Are they enough reasons for legalization, who and why would it upset. Is there any difference from denying Americans the rights of assembly and free speech, or the right of happiness than the right to do what they want with there bodies. Are there programs that could create a sexual environment that is designed for the release of pleasure and stress. Sex is the aid in channeling this instinctual energy, that is felt by all, into a system that is victimless. Taxation and frequent health exams a socialized environment that is controlled and purposeful.

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