I have seen this picture many times over the years, and I still have mixed feelings about it.
What was the motive behind the picture? Was it a setup pic (just the right angle, etc.)? What was this picture used for?
What the viewers of this picture see is a man about to be executed in the streets of Vietnam. The man is cringing because he knows what is going to happen. The look on his face makes him appear to be more of the victim than he truly is. His hands are handcuffed/tied behind his back, so that really adds to the innocence of him. The black and white setup of the pic, just gives it more of an eerie feeling to me. I have never really paid to much attention to this before, but I notice now, that the background is almost 'white-washed' so that the focal point is the two men.
When the picture was published, people were shocked of the horror of what was being done. Yet, we live in a country that upholds the death penalty. Was the shock more of the technique being used? Or the fact that people know the death penalty is being used, and we just don't want to admit it?
The truth of this picture is a different story....
The man who is about to be executed was just arrested for being involved with a mass murder of innocent people. The officer holding the gun had family friends that were killed. The actual photographer (Eddie Adams) was there when it happened, and when he took the photo, he wanted to show what really happened. The picture was immediately used to show that the innocent unarmed civilians were being pulled out into the streets and shot for no reason. I have watched several interviews with the photographer, and he still says that if he would have known how the picture was going to be displayed, he would have never submitted it to his bosses.
I am not saying I agree with what happened, but I can see where any picture or image regardless of intent, can be taken and manipulated then shown to the public if a much different light. As viewers we need to understand that a image is worth a thousand words, and often times, those words might not even be what truly happened. Our technology allows us to use photo-shop and other media tools to alter any given photograph. We have read how 'with rhetoric comes responsiblities'...I truly agree, regardless of any format it comes in.
I thought this was a great teaching tool to show the reasoning behind why Stanford is the BEST school to attend. We are a visual species...(we like looking at things), and what better way to get a point across. Pictures are truly worth a thousand words, and they can easily be manipulated to sway ideas and opinions.
Out of the two readings, I found the Grant-Davie piece to
be more enjoyable. I liked the way it took Bitzer’s ideas and made them a
little easier to understand, and even ripped them apart at times. The terminology
was much easier to understand, so now I at least feel more comfortable
understanding what the heck they are all talking about.
I guess the rhetorical situation that comes to my mind is
the class mid-term project I have for my NAS Food Science class. The project
theme is for us as a class to prepare a feast for 150-200 people from the
community. Since it is based on the tribal cultures, the food is meant to be as
original as we can find or make. Most of the class was all for just inviting
people off the street, but I told them that we can’t do that because of health
reasons. I had documents from the State Health Department (I was the dictated liaison),
stating what we could and couldn’t do, and wild game was off the list if we
opened it to the general public. Of course other ‘rhetors’ were mad and
spouting off that ‘I don’t have to worry about this bullshit when I have a bbq
in my backyard’. I understand that one of the constraints with rhetoric is
previous historical instances, and since this was a NAS class, history just
fueled the fire. I was basically called a ‘colonialist sympathizer’ and that
the feast would take place regardless of the punishment. Once I told the class
the fines and possible lawsuits involved, the angry tone finally shut down.
I understand that rhetoric is a great tool for discussion,
but when one side is using facts and rational, and the other side is just using
ignorance as a rebuttal, that’s where I have a problem. What really annoyed me
about this situation was the fact that the people that were getting all pissed off
were grad students that aren’t even tribal. They were attempting to use their
ethos to get everyone all pissed off about the rules. They were attacking the
State Department and anyone else in the class who supported the rules, when
they all knew MSU said ‘no’ to our group for the very same reasons.
When it was said and over, the group as a whole decided to
just invite certain people, which was ok under the state guidelines.
Thank goodness that Susan Katz was able to address Romney and say publicly that all the problems we have now are due to the lack of attention of the Bush admin.
Romney then says he appreciates the question...OK, why is it OK for a citizen to compare him and Bush as twins, yet when the President does it, Obama is an ass!?
Of course, he doesn't address the question at first, he has to address the previous question...in typical political fashion, he tries to over-step the landmine right in front of him.
Romney says he isn't going to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, what bull. He is totally against any kind of birth control. He has already said that numerous times in his campaigning. Does he think the population forgets what he says? He then goes on about saying that employers shouldn't have any say in what women do as far as birth control. That argument doesn't make sense...
I love Susan's look..she is just looking at him thinking, "You are so full of shit!" Romney claims Bush made mistakes, but they were mistakes Romney voted for!!! We had the technology when Bush was in office, its just better now.
I love how Obama just tells the public how much full of crap he is. This is what I wanted to see!! He even calls him out as saying he is the last one going after anyone. NICE!!!! There is Romney, just sitting there listening with that crappy smile on his face.
Romney loves blaming China...then states trickle down economics doesn't work here. Um...him and his friends started that. Blames them for being an currency manipulator, yet his buddies are economic manipulators.
More people hired? HOW!?!? Yet he wants to cut all financial aide funding for college students, any federally funding programs....if you fire people, how are you creating new jobs?
I just love how Obama called him out on everything he said. This is what I was waiting for...he might have been quiet the first round, but now he is coming out calling Romney a lying bag of garbage!!
Government does not create jobs! Is what he shouts, yet isn't that what he is claiming he is going to do?!
I hunt and own guns, but alot of people...ALOT here in Montana should not be allowed to own a slingshot. Regardless of gun bans, people are going to hurt others and find ways to do it. The gun the shooter used in the theater, was not an AK...all those weapons are the SAME guns that police have. I feel that if the general public can't have them, fine, but police officers don't need to have a military grade weapon either. They system is broken, and it needs fixed. Romney says its illegal to own a fully automatic weapon....ONLY IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR THE PERMIT!!!! How does the topic go from guns to the sanctity of marriage? I think its great the moderator calls him on how he is a flip-flopper on the guns issue.
Both candidates feel that educated people don't kill....that just irritates me to no end. That shooter was highly educated....we need to blow that myth out of the water that only scummy, stupid people hurt people.
As I watch Jon Tester talk about why he should be ‘the chosen
one’ for Montana, I can’t help but dwell on what he means when he spouts the
words, “The Montana Way!” What does that actually mean? Does anyone truly know?
Is this his imaginary vision of what Montana represents? What does it mean to
others (like me) that see views differently? I have personally met Tester last
semester in a Native American Studies (NAS) class, and I was not impressed.
Believe me, I am not a Rehberg fan either, but this Senator race will surely be
a vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’
Photos courtesy of: www.politicalguide.com
Growing up I
was the typical kid who read western stories based on the wild, untamed west. I
admit I fell into the whole Hollywood romance that western movies and books
depicted. Nothing was more awesome to see a rugged cowboy with his shiny spurs,
a lever action rifle in its scabbard, and his reliable six guns in its holster.
This proud, mysterious, figure would slowly ride into town on his trusty steed.
Unfortunately those days are gone, yet I feel while watching Tester’s ads, even
though he is educated, he feels that Montana is still open land with vigilantes
running around taking the law into their own hands. Maybe this is what he
imagines:
www.alemadephotography.com
www.westernmontana.land.com
www.fineartamerica.com
“We are really a free
people out here. The American spirit is making its last stand here. Every man
is his master. He believes in himself. We don’t know anything about tenement
life, ward politics, the factory system-all that…” (McNickle, D’Arcy. “The Hawk
is Hungry”
If this is what he truly sees in his mind of what Montana
represents, then why is he needed in office?
I have come
to the conclusion that his main target audience for his ads are farmers and
ranchers of Montana. Tester claims he is a 3rd generation Montanan, and farming
is in his blood. How can he make the claim in his ads that he is for all Montanans,
when he specifically is going for the Pathos, Logos, and Ethos, of the long
existing farming and ranching communities? Is he so blinded that he doesn’t
realize that Montana is a huge state that is diverse in jobs? While it remains
fairly untamed, a vast majority of its populace are not farmers and ranchers.
Bozeman
itself is not a poor, farming community. It houses the college, numerous
schools, all types of highly advanced engineering and technical businesses.
Belgrade is more of an urban town, but even then, not everyone lives on a farm
or ranch. With this approach, I feel that Tester is missing a large portion of
the votes available to him. The degree that he acquired is for Music, with a
teaching option. Which I find truly ironic in the sense that he feels Montana
needs scientists and engineers, not critical thinkers. So where does music fit
in? “The Montana Way” quote that he talks about, seems to get lost in the minds
of people who just don’t buy into that logic. People who actually live in the
cities, might not relate to what he is saying, or instantly conjure up their
own vision of “The Montana Way,” and it isn’t always pretty.
His ads are
full of enthymemes that say indirectly; this is how he does government in
Montana. In his mind, everything is going great. Yet when statistics are pulled
from the State Health Departments, his way of governing doesn’t address a lot
of issues. I have yet to see an ad where he and his wife are saying they are
going to tackle the high suicide rates, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol
addiction, loose gun control laws, and lowest children immunization in the
nation. Instead of addressing these topics for Montana Families, he states,
“caring as deeply about the next generation as the people who came before cared
about us…now that is the Montana Way.” If the next generation is the highest
importance to him, why is it that in 2007, the federal government made Montana
put an open container law in the books? That should have been his first action
as an elected Senator, but even as a lower level political head, he never pushed
it. How can anyone Democrat or Republican say that the next generation is vital
but will only change laws because the federal government threatens to withhold
money?
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs
Nice to know that my families safety on the road isn't priority to Tester, yet if I die, I get a free cross placed in my honor.
I feel that
his own personal gains are clouding his mind when dealing with environmental
issues. When he came to my class last semester, I asked him about why he voted
to allow the Keystone Pipeline Company to be exempt from submitting any
Environmental Impact Studies (EIS). In the typical political fashion, he just
shook his head and instantly blamed the President. His whole environmental logic
is wrong. How can he claim that he wants to preserve the land, and water of Montana,
and that he wants to look into renewable energy, when he seems to be on the
payroll of the pipeline companies? What jobs are truly going to be created? It
will create more work for the people already in the oil field positions. Tester
is trying to sell this off as a way to get people in Montana off unemployment
and get them to work. Anyone can look at what is happening to neighboring states
that have recently allowed the oil exploitation. Whose interest is at stake
here…Montanans or Tester’s personal bank account?
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com
One classmate asked him about his stance on the loose gun control laws and without missing a beat, he just answered, "We are Montanans and that is what we do." I own guns, but I still believe that some people shouldn't be allowed to own a sling-shot!
2012 Spring NASX 304
www.idjackson.net
I recently acquired a flyer that
was mailed out to potential voters in Montana. The front cover is a picture of
Tester walking with a ranching couple, smiling and having a great discussion. I
find it funny yet irritating how much the photo has been edited. The
picture is an image taken directly from his own ad (found at: 40 second mark).
What has been changed is the back fence. Originally, the video shows cows in
the background and farther back is a tree line that indicates a free running
creek bed. The edited photo shows the fence covering all of the animals and
creek, and it is a poor photo-editing job to boot. The point of doing this
would be to hide the fact that if Tester is pro-clean water and resources, he
can't really show that the cows being that close to the water, which will pollute the
water supply. I have done work with fish biologists, and their main purpose is to
prevent this type of ranching practice from happening. This flyer is full of
mis-leading facts about his political career; he isn't the opponent of special
interest groups (he has close ties to the pipeline company), he isn't an
advocate for first-rate education (teachers here complain of lack of state
funding). If Tester is willing to 'doctor' his pictures to hide the truth, what
else is he hiding from potential voters? I guess in the long run, that is what
the rhetoric is about...cloud the public with mis-information and let them
figure out what is really going on. I know what is important in my life right
now, and this senate race will be a hard one for me.
When I fired up my laptop, the first news headline that came up linked back to Romney being arrogant and his 47% claim. I truly wish Obama would have took that and ran with it on the debate.
I don't really know where to start...mostly I think everything Romney says is a damn lie! He pulls numbers out of a magic hat that mean nothing. He stands there with a crappy ass smile on his face as if he thinks its funny that voters are actually trusting stuff he says.
-"The rich will do fine regardless of who is president" Um, what the hell does that mean?
-Gas prices have doubled since Obama took office...
-"I like coal, clean coal" I didn't know there is a difference, yet Romney says he is pro-environment and talks about letting the pipeline go through.
I think it was great for Obama to call Romney out on his plans. The plans are there, but nobody knows what his plans are. Obama even stated that seems to be Romney's trend.
Obama started out thanking his wife for marrying him. Total emotional appeal that he is a sensitive guy. Talks about Americans fighting back on job loss.
I have always found it interesting when watching the debates (since Clinton) that on tv, the camera has both candidates the same height. Bush versus Kerry really showed that, as a society we seem to look at a shorter person being weaker. So for the millions watching tv, the candidates want the same height. Special podiums were built for Bush Jr, so he looked much taller than he was.
Romney states his tax plan has never been done....must be a reason for it never being done. Wants to lower gov spending, but wants to increase defense. To do this has no problem doing away with numerous government funded programs, yet will create more jobs doing so.
Romney states that individual responsibility works best. Enthymeme is that if it back fires, it's not his fault. Americans just didn't take the initiative. His entitlement section says nothing will change, but that is totally different in what he said at the spendy dinner.
Sad that Obama had to explain Romney's voucher system for the health care idea he wants to run with. It won't work, so that's why Romney's plans are all hush hush.
I was waiting for Romney to start spatting about faith and religion and God and the constitution and such. I just had to wait for it and he eventually did.
I don't think Romney really won this round. I wish Obama would have put Romney in his place, but by letting Romney lie through his teeth, it just made Obama look better in my opinion.
I think Obama's rhetoric approach was pretty good, it was more factual based in my eyes. He knew when to just let Romney dig his grave even deeper.
Well, I feel this is pretty much just duplicating what I said in class on Wednesday.
For my topic, I want to use as much as I can think of from Aristotle and just rip Testers ad apart. I am not a Rehberg fan, but Tester is pretty close to him in my lack of respect. Anyways, after seeing his latest ad we watched in class, I want to use that viewed ideology he is trying to use to persuade voters.
Also I want to focus on what enthymeme is being played on when he talks about the "Montana way".
Most campaigns are clouded with ethos, some logos (usually just b.s. stats), and our favorite one of all....pathos.
I just seem drawn to this latest ad of Tester's and the "unspoken words" are what I want to focus on.
I guess for me, I have met him, so I know how much a blowhard he is...so its that much more easier for me to ridicule his ads. But again, its the unspoken words that I will focus on.
After watching the Mother Jones video yesterday, I just keep laughing at how Romney is just making himself out to be such a peice of crap. I also understand that for a lot of people, he still holds a special place in their hearts and income tax bracket.
The largest chunk of enthymemes that I really see is more or less equal to what others said in class. Romney talks about the followers of 'that guy' are going to vote on emotion. What he is really saying in my opinion is this: "You are my people! We are all rich power people, lets face it, we are also smart and educated. We shouldn't waste our time worrying about the dumb hicks who love that guy. They are nothing to us but a burdone on our millions. We earned our money regardless of how many people we stepped on to get it!"
We all know that is what he wants to truly say! Bush Jr., got blasted from addressing a similar group years ago. He came in and said, "You are my people!"
Romney is using the unspoken words to say what he truly means...that 47% of Americans are garbage.
It also makes me think how much this boils down to race...."that guy" + Americans who 'expect' food, healthcare and such = look, you have a black president who has allowed these black welfare babies to sponge off the system too long....we are rich whites who need to take a stand and take this country back
I have to say, every time I watch Mitt Romney on TV, I just want to throw up!!
His whole goal on this ad is to feed off the emotional aspect of peoples fear of the global tyrants that want to come attack the US. In his actual interview (even though it is on 35 seconds long), he blames everyone for the defense cuts in the military. He blames Obama, all the Democrats, and even the members of his beloved GOP.
By declaring the defense cuts, he is preying on peoples fears that without money to defend ourselves, military personal will die. He doesn't say that, but whenever defense budget is mentioned, death is linked to the unspoken words.
He also mentions how Obama is sequestrating military spending. (sequestrate means to confiscate or to separate or seclude). Interesting how he uses big words, that really don't apply to anything he is talking about. If Romney means Obama is separating Congress, hell, that has been separated years ago. In that aspect, he is playing on the ignorance of the audience.
The he accuses Obama for violating a law that he put into place. Hmmmm, he complains about Obama supposedly violating a law, yet we invaded Iraq and violated every war policy that has been in place. Again, blame the guy in charge and get the audience angry and emotional, but use the smoke and mirror show. "Look at what Obama the big bad wolf is doing, but don't look the other way and see what Bush and Co. did to get the US into this mess!"
After reading Aristotle, Socrates and Plato, I can't help but ask the question, who is actually the Master behind the Rhetoric?
Presidents are deemed great speakers, but how many of them truly write their own speeches? Bush didn't, (you could tell when he shot off the hip, he made an ass out of the Republican Party), the speaker is merely relaying the words to the audience. I understand that the speaker is using tone, facial features and such to appeal to the audience, but without the writers, the speaker would be just standing there.
I am not meaning this as a way to discredit the president or any speaker for that matter. I just wish that when the political races are over, the writers would get the true credit for what is being said.
Socrates' words are just what we are reading as Plato transcribed them. Again, is it truly Socrates, or should more credit be given to Plato for clever writing tactics?
I have only read a few things involving dialect with Socrates. The first time was during my CLS class. I had heard of Plato, but had never taken the time to read any of his work. While reading this, the wording and style of speech came to no surprise. I find that Socrates could very easily talk his way out of any situation, and convince an innocent man of guilt. What really impresses me about Socrates, he was known for not writing things down. All of what he says comes from ‘shooting off the hip’. He isn’t using note cards in any form, just using his intellect and ability of persuasion.
One question that does come to mind is: since Socrates didn’t write things down, is it possible that Plato may have embellished how good Socrates was in speech? After all Plato was his student, and looked up to him.
I did like the section of when Gorgias explains to Socrates that a teacher of rhetoric can not be blamed if the student uses it for ‘evil’. But then it becomes an issue of morals, not a battle of good rhetoric versus bad rhetoric.
After reading this, I don’t think there is a clear cut answer to what is good or bad rhetoric. Morals differ from person to person, so it would be easier to measure: effective rhetoric versus non-effective rhetoric.
I am originally from Boise, Idaho, and graduated in 2009
from Boise State University, in Drafting Design and Technology. A year before
graduation; the market took a crap and the drafting field seemed to suffer in
Idaho. I really enjoyed the mechanic side of the field so I started looking
into Mechanical Engineering schools. I had applied and was accepted into the
University of North Dakota, but a month before I graduated the town of Fargo
flooded. After really researching the town, I found out that Fargo floods
pretty much every year. Part of the student’s life every year is to help throw
sandbags. I very quickly decided against moving up there. The next closest town
was Bozeman.
We (wife and two girls) moved up here, and have been here
ever since. I enjoyed the Mechanical Engineering side, but it truly isn’t a
program for anyone who has a life. It is one of those programs that wants you
to live, eat, and breathe homework. I don’t mind a challenge, but refuse to
push my family away so I can spend all semester working on static formulas on
beams and cables. I was unhappy with what I was doing and told my wife I was
either going to drop out or had to change my major. So last year, I ran the
gauntlet of paper work and signatures, and made it official that my new major
is English with writing option, and a Minor in Native American Studies. My goal
is to become a technical writer working with the Montana reservation colleges
writing grants. Even if that is just a more ‘freelance’ job, I will still look
for work as a tech writer, anywhere the need arises.
Along the way I have met a
lot of great professors and added many people to my ‘friend’ list. I had the
chance to meet Jon Tester in my last NAS class....interesting to say the least
(and I am a Democrat).
I have loved the transition; just kick myself in the butt
for not pursuing the English major to begin with. Oh well, isn’t life all about
finding out who we are and what we want to become?
I guess when I think of the steps I have been taught for
pre-writing, I really have to think of what type of writing I will be doing.
For technical writing, I have been taught to create an
outline. This helps creates a flow chart of ideas that I want to cover. I can
always take things out, or add them in. Research is another big key that is
involved with most tech writing. Before I ever write anything on paper, I
gather as much information as I can on the subject. When I feel I have enough
back-up info, then I go back through everything and eliminate any items or
resources that are found to be un-reliable, or might be irrelevant to the
paper. Once everything is in order, I just go for it. When it’s completed, I
will leave it for a day or two, and then come back to it. This helps find any
errors I have missed. Another set of eyes will look it over and let me know if
it makes sense and if it flows.
Other types of writing, I usually just dive straight into it,
without any outline or such set ways. I might jot down ideas from time to time
before I write, but that is about as sophisticated as it gets. I will write
everything down, and then walk away. When I come back to it, I will pick up on
any changes that need to be made. Will have another person look at it and give
it the thumbs up, then I am done.
As much as I hate burning up paper and ink, I have been
taught (and found very useful) to print out a hard copy to proof read. It
really helps to see it on paper versus digital screen.
PDF question:
I haven’t ever really followed much of this type of
history.., so I am lost in what the author is even talking about.Necessity and Fate, are they supposed to be
actual beings, or just capitalized words to make a point in the writing?
