Weekly Writing 8

It’s disconcerting that the mainstream media focus on documenting the accusatory verbal punches aimed at knocking policy and the public off-track. The rhetoric of fear posited by scientists is hardly better than the dismantling of scientific proof with character attacks favored by conservatives who are against international climate change sanctions that might change the business landscape that has filled their pockets. If the barrage of lobbyists in Washington is any indicator at all, big industries are pressuring our representatives to look the other way when changes are proposed. In fact, based on Jeff Goodell’s recent article in Rolling Stone, many of these lobbyists quote faulty estimates from industry-sponsored studies. Its time that climate change is presented clearly and in a way that normal people can understand.

Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert writes that because climate change lacks the key markers that grab humans’ attention—a clear danger, or a moral or emotional trigger—-we’re essentially immune to viewing it as a current threat to our survival and well-being. It’s a much more abstract phenomenon than unemployment or health care and that much easier to ignore. Because its affects are slow yet dire, its up to journalists, scientists, and policy-makers to recast climate change and give it tangibility and relevance now, when we still have time to make changes.

Letter to The Dean

Dear Dean Powers,


Seattle University's Communication and Journalism Department is a critical link between the university and the community.  The existence of an autonomous department in this discipline has long benefited students and staff by giving them greater freedom to participate in internships, community journalism, private public relations, and publications (like the Spectator).  While the Communication and Journalism department may be one of the smallest on campus, it has wisely and efficiently used its budget to keep its production equipment up to date, send students and staff to conferences, and promote study abroad opportunities beyond Seattle University. 
The University's financial situation is especially trying to the Communication and Journalism Department since its students have historically faced the most competition heading into the job market.  In an effort to maintain the commitment to social justice as well as its student's competitive edge, I believe a healthy compromise can be reached that will ensure that the Comm. Department can continue to offer its students the best possible education while streamlining the programs it offers.
Currently, the department offers three distinct majors, Journalism, Communication Studies, and Strategic Communications.  These majors share a core in rhetoric but then branch out with Journalism and Strategic Communications students focusing on the various aspects of their prospective careers and Communications Studies students focusing on the philosophical and rhetorical implications and aspects of communication.  While the department heavily promotes social justice in its work, it lags in its commitment to leadership and community involvement.  Because students in the department are encouraged but not required to participate in the university's own communication outlets (i.e. The Spectator, KSUB, Seattle University Public Relations) they are missing out on a chance to further link themselves to the community.  By cutting one class from each major and requiring a quarter-long participation in one of the university's existing communication mediums, we would save money while promoting leadership and community involvement. 

Thank you for considering this proposal and we look forward to seeing positive changes soon,

Jamie Wallace

Final Project Cover Memo

Project Title: What’s The Risk—Tripping the Alarm for Climate Change


Genre: Podcasts, Radio Programs

Publication: Public and College Radio Stations

Audience: I’m trying to reach out to citizens who are concerned about climate change but whose interest in the issue may have waned. I want to focus the audience’s attention not on the risks of climate change, but on the way that they think about those risks. Hopefully, this will help to move the climate change debate beyond scientific and political grumblings and increase our understanding of the issue in a way that will move us to action. Ideally, listeners will think differently about climate change after listening to these short programs.

Analysis: Climate change is an abstract issue. I want to bring that issue down to earth and make it conversational and understandable. Because climate change talks usually consist of abstract predictions and figures, it’s easy for people to tune out the real implications of ignoring it. The conversational and personal nature of radio makes the discussion palatable and friendly. Also, because I’m steering the discussion away from the figures and predictions, I hope that the audience will find that they can reach a more nuanced idea of climate change that doesn’t consist solely of financial figures or gloom and doom forecasts.

Letter to Senator Murry D-Wa.

Dear Senator Murry,

As I'm sure you're aware, the impact of the state budget on students who are struggling with tuition costs is of paramount importance right now.  The proposed tuition increases will effectively make higher-education cost prohibitive for many students.  With the dissolution of work study, the larger class sizes, and underpaid professors and staff, I'm beginning to wonder just how much the state values education at all.  When cuts are necessary, it seems like higher education is one of the first institutions to be put on the chopping block.
 An investment in education is an investment in the state and its citizens.  An educated population is far more able to participate in the political process and contribute to the state economy, so why would the legislature focus only on short-term goals when adjusting its spending. 
The very people who the tuition increases will impact most are those who are most dependent on the government for their education.  Without the option of work study, individuals will need to take out more loans, which will limit their future financial contributions to the state and local economy. 
Its time to focus the lens on the big picture and consider the long-term effects of a tuition increase of this magnitude.  I urge you to evaluate other sectors of the state economy before you resort to penalizing those who are seeking higher education.

Sincerely,

Jamie Wallace

Rising Tuition

Remedying state budget shortfalls by raising tuition costs has students, educators, and policy makers struggling to find a middle ground.  Students' concern that they will not be able to pay for their education and the resultant protests mean that lawmakers need to come  up with a quick solution.  Education should be one of the last areas that budget shortfalls touch.  It seems like lawmakers are looking to cut costs in an area that will be the least politically damaging (and offend those with the least political power).  If the state concludes that raising the cost of education is its only option, it should condense universities instead of compromising current educational standards (larger classes, no work study, lower-salaried professors).  By accepting smaller classes with the same demographic makeup as now exists, the policy makers could cut their overall spending without enraging and financially penalizing the student population.  Unfortunately, this is contrary to the goal of educating more citizens and does little to make education more accessible.  Passing the penalty of budget concerns on to students is just not the answer.  Education is an investment, the state needs to realize that the return is far greater than the initial cost.

Problem Solving Letter

Dear Landlord,

Recently, the raccoons in our yard have been out of control.  They are tipping over trash cans, digging up the flower beds and being a general nuisance.  Not only am I concerned about the mess that they're causing on the property, I also fear for the health and well-being of the residents and neighborhood pets, who are kept up by the raccoons late-night antics.  Based on the trail of garbage and the frequent rustling and squealing noises, I've determined that the raccoon den is under the porch of our building (this would also account for the small dead rodents that we've been picking up near the front door).  The possibility of disease is also a worry since raccoons have been know to become rabid and bite humans.  The animal control department directed me to contact you and I'm hoping that you'll address this problem soon be it with traps, poison, or den relocation. 

Thank you for sharing this concern,

Jamie Wallace

The Onion Bans Tolerable Relationships

The Onion beautifully satirizes the anti-gay marriage movement in their, "New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other" video. Implying that separate beds, stunted conversations, and sexless existences make loveless couples less qualified for marriage than couples who are in love takes the gay marriage debate and makes it seem silly and trite. Its very funny in the way that it takes a serious debate and places the same argument in a different contextual arena in order to break it down.

AdCouncil: SpeakUp Campaign

In an effort to curb teenage reckless driving habits, the AdCouncil's new campaign uses comedians in faux-teenage drag riding along with apathetic adolescents to say: Slow Down and Drive Safe or risk killing everyone in the vehicle. The campaign, Speak Up Or Else, aims to get teens to tell their peers to keep their eyeballs on the road and only the road and obey the speed limit. The pitch itself is a little hokey but it seems to get the cause and effect point across well enough. Reckless driving + Peer's unfavorable opinions - thrill-seeking lust = A safer driver

Cause and Effect Letter: Theater Solo

There's nothing like sitting in a theater as the previews morph into the feature and knowing that the two empty seats next to you mean that you have a cupholder and an armrest all to yourself. By attending movies alone, one avoids the pressure to buy popcorn, the compromise over seat choices, and the dreaded hand-holding conundrum. It really allows you to let go of all the unnecessary social distractions and focus on the film. Though it seems selfish (and it is), there's nothing like sitting between two empty velvet seats to really immerse oneself in the theatrical environment. I find that I'm able to better understand and delve further into a film when I watch it by myself in a theater. Its a conscious choice to forgo cultural norms (aka, being an individual [loser/loner]) for a few short hours to really sit down and enjoy a movie, absorb the cinematography, be captivated by the dialogue, and entranced by the actors' craft. That, and its way cheaper than going for a massage.

Weekly Writing 7: Credibility and Review

In order to best represent the risks associated with climate change, I would need to find credibility in a place where others have entered the discussion and failed. I already know that many Americans feel like climate change is an issue that is outside of their day-to-day existence and the current players in the debate are doing nothing to change that. Unlike the scientists, experts, and politicians that have exhausted the public with tales of doom, money, and doubt, I would start by bringing the issue much closer to home. Besides demonstrating an understanding of climate change in regards to its science and how it is portrayed in the media, I would earnestly personalize climate change so that individual American's and communities would find that addressing it is to their environmental and economic advantage. Because economic concerns are tangible, it’d be very important to present the issue in a way that is complimentary to personal economic benefits. Instead of positioning climate regulations in opposition to economic growth, I would need to explore new technologies and how developing industries can shape a world where new climate policies and economic redevelopment are complimentary goals. Additionally, representing this issue authoritatively would include accounting for the difficulty of imagining abstract ideas. Instead of conceding that the science is too complex to address, I think it’d be better to see how the science applies here and now. It’d make an impact to explore what climate change means locally and how our choices to invest in new technology or enact emissions restrictions would affect us every day. By combining hard facts with personal and community concerns, my audience and I would be exploring how climate change reaches beyond the debate and into real life.

The RealClimate website provides a forum for scientists and concerned citizens to discuss climate change. One of the most interesting recent posts discusses a new iPhone app that provides quick rebuttals to arguments that are skeptical of climate change. The author of this post (and certainly the app’s creator) are really trying to move the climate change debate from criticism of scientists and the media back to the science itself. They’re doing this admirably by proving that they are tech-savvy and knowledgeable and appealing to a wide audience. The site, which is part of the UK’s Guardian Environment Network, is comprised of responses to climate change articles published in the mainstream media with particular focus on articles that have appeared in The Guardian. The authors and the discussions that follow each post (the site format is similar to a blog) are drenched in scientific know-how with a large helping of practicality. The blog often deconstructs misleading media pieces and corrects out of context quotes and iffy scientific assertions with copious citations. Sometimes, the scientists and contributors who were misrepresented in the original piece also weigh in. RealClimate catches the media in the act of distorting climate change and then corrects its mistakes--very persuasive indeed.

Letter of Inquiry

Ms. Elizabeth Barratt-Brown
Co-Chairperson
Center for a New American Dream
6930 Carroll Ave., Ste. 900
Takoma Park, MD 20912-4466


Dear Ms. Barratt-Brown,

The Seattle University Department of Communication Requests $500,000 to increase public awareness of the impacts of climate change on local economies and public quality of life.

Organization:  As communicators, all humans are part of an ongoing conversation. Whether professional journalists, public speakers, teachers, managers, or simply citizens, we live in a social world shaped and continually remade through communication practices. The messages we send and receive from others do far more than transmit information or express feelings. They shape attitudes, build and modify relationships, and even change the course of history. The mission of the Communication Department is to empower students and faculty to develop more meaningful and effective voices in this communal conversation.

Seattle University has a history of public service and leadership in the interest of creating a just and humane world.  Keeping this in mind, and considering the increasing threat of climate change to disadvantaged communities, Seattle University's Department of Communication would like to undertake a student-produced and directed film project that aims to expand the public's understanding of their local environment and visualize what climate change will mean to their community.  In order to best accomplish this, we propose creating a film called The Globe in My Backyard that will examine the risks of ignoring climate change and how, if allowed to continue, emissions and pollution will change local environmental and economic landscapes.

The film will focus on two communities:  the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington--a young, progressive community in the Pacific Northwest that is taking steps to decrease the human impact on the environment; Pueblo, Colorado--a small city in Southern Colorado that has recently cut its recycling program and is plagued by economic woes and an aging population. This mission aligns with the Center For a New American Dream's goal of providing profound experiences that change the way American's perceive their interactions with the environment.  It aims to reduce the abstract quality of climate change while contextualizing the short- and long- term impacts  of prioritizing economy over environment in two very different communities.

Major expenses will include film production and travel.  Other funding for this project will be provided by Seattle University, grants supporting the arts, and environmental awareness grants.

Thank you for considering this project.


Jamie Wallace
Seattle University Journalism '10
901 12th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122-4411
(206) 296-5340

Conceptualizing Risk: Climate Change and America

When it comes to climate change there are two dominant conversations brewing in the halls of government and flashing across the airwaves; one revolves around science, the other likes to talk about money. Both of them are standing in the way of helping Americans figure out what to do about climate change. A better approach to climate change would involve helping Americans see exactly what the risks of climate change entail, passing up the bickering about science and the economy and forging a path to regulations.

When asked what was standing in the way of passing climate legislation today, Anthony Leiswerowitz of the Yale University School of Forestry told NPR, “First of all, it’s the economy, stupid”. Historically, arguments extolling the dangers of climate change have been overshadowed by the economic concerns that PBS does a fantastic job of explaining in their Frontline documentary, "Hot Politics". In 1988, in the midst of the hottest summer on record, scientists and government representatives first came together to inform the public about the dangers of climate change. The green house affect was in full tilt and pollution and carbon dioxide (now the buzzword, CO2) were the key forces behind it.

Economic whisperings, however, soon grew to a roar. Democrats who depended on union workers were concerned that passing legislation that affected those in the coal and oil industries would hurt their chances of being endorsed and reelected. Republicans, in a similar situation, depended on the coal and oil companies for campaign donations. So in 1991, when the Gulf War began, it was easy for both sides to sweep climate change aside.

In the mid-nineties, the energy industry started a new campaign aimed at discrediting climate change scientists. Their strategy was swiped straight from the tobacco industry. The pitch? Cast doubt on scientists’ claims in a two-part effort. First, advertise that the available science isn’t conclusive enough to merit major legislative changes. Second, sponsor research that supports your own economic goals. Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future, criticizes the energy industry’s tactics in a recent Rolling Stone article where he writes that in addition to funding faulty research, the industries with vested interests in stopping climate change legislation also mounted an enormous lobbying campaign meant to get the results of that research into politicians’ hands. The study “predicted economic disaster if the climate bill were signed into law […]. This, of course, was complete bullshit.” Goodell talked to a congressional staffer who said how hard it was to find credible research, “We noticed that every time a constituent came in to talk to us about the bill, they would be quoting the same numbers […] we knew they were a lie, but they were everywhere."

In 1997, Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol, finally committing the U.S. to enacting climate change policy. Paradoxically, the Kyoto policy was never brought before the Senate for ratification, and therefore never signed into law. Further, when President George W. Bush took office, the Kyoto protocol was repealed altogether amidst claims that China and India would gain an unfair economic advantage by not enforcing CO2 restrictions. Concern that jobs would move to countries where carbon emissions were not regulated let the Bush administration withdraw from Kyoto altogether.

When President Obama was elected in 2008, environmentalists celebrated. Obama’s election came just in time for the global climate summit in Copenhagen, where the White House claimed President Obama would introduce a plan to cut U.S. emissions 80 percent over the course of the next fifty years.  Once again, no binding agreements surfaced and after several days of discussions, world leaders had whittled down the most stringent goals into a vague framework that will likely take years to morph into mandatory global policy.

Former Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich explains, “What you have is people on the right know they’re against regulation and they’re against taxation and they’re against bigger government so they don’t want to think about it because the only answers they ever see are things they hate. People on the left know the environment’s important, but their answers are all regulation, taxation, and litigation. And so you’re caught in this gridlock, because the left insists on pain and the right insists on avoidance”.

Several media outlets have been openly critical about the government’s repeated procrastination when it comes to climate change. An LA Times editorial criticized Democrats for not passing a climate bill earlier in the year when they still held a senate majority and for letting politics repeatedly get in the way of necessary legislation, “they’re afraid to back anything that could be perceived as harmful to the economy.” Yet the longer it takes to pass legislation, the more difficult and grandiose the necessary plans become and the less they appeal to public sentiment. As the LA Times put it, “It’s foolish to say we can’t afford to pass a climate bill during a recession. We can’t afford not to.”

Pitting our incapacity to imagine the affects of climate change against the very tangible affects of the economy, its not surprising public interest has moved on to greener pastures. Timing, it seems, is key in moving the discussion past the validity of the science or the economic concerns, and looking at the long-and short-term risks associated with climate change. Viewing An Inconvenient Truth with Hurricane Katrina in the background sharpened advocates’ arguments for regulations and positioned the issue as a “clear and present danger”. A poll conducted by the National Environmental Trust after Hurricane Katrina found that most people who had previously believed climate change would affect only their children’s generation now believed that climate change would have serious affects during their lifetime. Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust told PBS Frontline, “In our poll, the number of people who said ‘It's going to impact my life’ after Katrina skyrocketed. It went to actually a majority of Americans saying that ‘This is a threat which may impact me’”.

Natural disasters aren’t the only thing that gets the public’s attention when it comes to paying attention to climate, but unpleasant weather certainly helps. Back in the hot summer of ’88, legislators presenting scientists’ findings about global warming opened all the windows, letting the heat pour in and stagnate just before the senate sat down. Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert says, by nature, humans have a hard time grasping the risks behind global warming. The evolutionary tools our brains have developed are simply not very good at quantifying abstract risks that lack emotional, moral, or immediate stimuli. “We see it as a threat to our futures -- not our afternoons. Like all animals, people are quick to respond to clear and present danger, which is why it takes us just a few milliseconds to duck when a wayward baseball comes speeding toward our eyes,” says Gilbert. And since there’s no human face to climate change (except, perhaps, our own), it’s difficult to mobilize against a tangible villain. “The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets,” says Gilbert. “Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain's alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.”

The ping-pong match of blame and begging between policy-makers is turning the public off of what’s really important here. When it comes down to it, this is an issue that will affect everyone, regardless of whether they have the financial means to shape the public opinion about it one way or the other. A climate change solution needs to focus on diminishing the abstract quality of “climate” so that the country can get a handle on exactly what’s at stake. And instead of letting economic and international policy overshadow climate change, as has happened since the issue surfaced, opportunities should be sought to bundle solutions. A successful plan will account for the mental leap from abstract to concrete risk and make that risk as tangible and important to Americans as salvaging the economy or winning a war.

Stasis: Women's Ski Jump

 Should women's ski jump be added to the Winter Olympics? The argument rests on whether the sport's following warrants adding it, whether it meets the IOC's technical requirements, and whether continuing to deny it constitutes gender discrimination.  The IOC's opacity makes it difficult to determine what, exactly, the standards for admission into the Olympics entails.  Given that the IOC isn't bound by Canadian law, discrimination suits filed against it, while successful, did not result in admission.  The IOC's opaque rules also make it difficult to determine if their requirements for admission have been met.  It seems like a sport like ski cross, riding on the pop culture associations of a ---cross name was included with fewer participants and a smaller following.   So it really begs the question, are women being held back from jumping because the projected popularity of the event is small?  Additionally, arguing that it isn't "medically"appropriate for women to participate in ski jump is not only antiquated but plain dumb.  The world record holder in ski jump is a woman. 

Hookin' it up

Jack Grime's has managed to capture the essence of the hook-up, that college phenomenon that leaves singles physically satisfied but emotionally bereft.  The hook-up, argues Grimes, lends itself to easy liasons between boys and girls but not much else, and, in doing so, has created a culture that is satisfied with taking off clothes but not masks, and lacks the capacity for intimacy.  I think Grimes goes a little far with his attack of the hook-up, and while it might be the norm at Tufts, it doesn't seem to be anything out of control at Seattle University.  Students date or don't date, those that participate in the "Hook-Up Culture" are a small and visible minority.  People realize that a hook-up isn't going to be a very fulfilling or self-affirming life choice, but more of a convenient satisfaction with a bitter aftertaste.  While the hook-up might be a quick fix for horniness, it certainly isn't a long term goal for most people. By linking the affinity for a hook-up with the demise of intimacy, Grimes is basically saying that people have to make a choice between real intimacy and action without love.  But the hook-up is to love what fast-food is to nutrition.  Delightful but ultimately detrimental and not very sustainable as a lifestyle.  In time, people crave the intimate and soul baring love that a hook-up just can't provide.  Grimes doesn't get that the  hook-up isn't a cultural bastion, just a temporary departure from real life.

Reine de Saba

Valentine's Day, 2010:  We were craving chocolate cake a few days before Valentine's Day.  It had nothing to do with the both of us being single, a long string of movie nights, or afternoons spent drinking coffee and doing homework.  It had nothing to do with romance at all.  Or solitude.  Sure, we mooned over the occasional musician, laughed about ex-boyfriends, or played Billie Holiday over the speakers of an ipod when the mood struck, but the chocolate craving was totally apart from all of this.  So when Valentine's Day finally arrived we didn't have much to do.  We decided to make a cake.  A chocolate cake.  A Reine de Saba almond and chocolate cake from Julia Child's cookbook.  It involved lots of separate and complicated steps:  melt the chocolate with coffee in a small pan placed in a larger pan with a spoonful of coffee, whip the egg whites until they frothed into a fluffy white meringue, heat the butter, add the sugar, pulverize the almonds, and fold in the ingredients in decreasing amounts until they come together in a thick, chocolaty, batter.  Then wait. The cake was amazing.  Thick and rich and complex. And that was Valentine's day.  A chocolate cake.

Evaluating Arguments, Values, and Facts

In the Fox News article, U.N.’s Global Warming Report Under Fresh Attack for Rainforest Claims, Gene Koprowski’s argument subtly uses an implied value system that comes across in the facts the author chooses, the histories he explains, and the quotes he includes. Koprowski chiefly uses facts from the U.N. ‘s 2007 Fourth Assessment Project that was put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This study reported that “40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.” Because this article positions itself against this claim, Koprowski swiftly uses another fact to disrepute the previous study, writing that the percent determination was actually based on an unrelated World Wildlife Federation study called “Global Review of Forest Fires,” that “had nothing to do with the issue of global warming”.

Koprowski then references two previous scandals surrounding the IPCC’s reports. The first concerning emails between U.K. and U.S. climate change scientists that showed that they had conspired to hide declining temperatures and the second in which the IPCC wrote that the Himalayan glaciers were melting because of climate change but was recently disproved (Koprowski does not say by whom).

Koprowski values shrewd examination of climate change claims. By not only citing the example of the most recent IPCC mishap, but previous examples as well, he subtly builds a case for scientific incompetence and perhaps vested interests from the IPCC concerning climate change. He relies on the assumption that the audience is familiar with the previous two IPCC reports and harbors some skepticism towards global warming reports. Because Koprowski is mainly focusing on the most recent IPCC study and the Amazon facts, he doesn’t give much background to the other cases but uses those to reinforce his general argument that the IPCC and the U.N. have a continued history of skewing climate change evidence. He also introduces players who are critical of the IPCC that add human tact to the issue and say what Koprowski only implies, like this statement from Andrew Wheeler, “If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it’s the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months.”

Koprowski values justice, i.e., honest reports and relevant data and employs loci of the existent—that which is concrete holds more value that that which is possible.


Jeff Goodell is far more explicit about the values that underlie his Rolling Stone article, "As The World Burns,” and his facts, histories, and expert testimonies indicate his strong argumentative position. Goodell juxtaposes expectations with realities surrounding climate change legislation in the United States and clearly hopes to clarify and provide a truthful account of what goes on behind the scenes. According to Goodell, the oil and coal industries are in league with lobbyists and the Republican Party—who all want climate change policy to fail in order to protect their financial interests. The Obama administration and environmentalists, on the other hand, want to push climate change legislation forward but are fighting an uphill battle against aggressive lobbyists, industry money, and biased economic reports.

Goodell’s facts include financial figures (“All told, the climate bill now contained $60 billion in support for coal—far more than the aid given to wind, solar, and all other forms for renewable energy combined.”), economic reports (According to an analysis by Stanford University economists, polluters received $134 billion in allowances that weren't necessary to ensure America's industrial stability.”), before-and-after aspects of the climate bill, and expert analysis.

Goodell values justice, in this case public accountability and legislature untainted by industry interests. The loci of essence come across in Goodell’s fiery attack on the energy industry, lobbyists, and the GOP. He attacks what he sees as fundamentally corrupt values and also presents a strong case against those values. Goodell assumes that his audience is familiar with the legislative proceedings regarding climate change. His appeal, while supported by facts and expert testimony among other things, has a very clear emotional aspect and his facts are couched in emotional language. After citing the findings from an energy industry-funded study that predicted a $1,500 increase in the average electric bill if the original climate bill passed, Goodell fires back, “This, of course, was complete bullshit. The most credible analysis of the bill, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the measure would cost most families no more than $175 a year”. His critical evaluation of the energy industry and their capacity to influence the climate change bill are evidently driven by strong opposing values that are heavily rooted in facts and historical analysis.

Ad Council--Think Before You Speak

The Ad Council's Think Before You Speak campaign is aimed at getting preteens and teens to stop using derogatory language--especially phrases like, "That's so gay".  The television arm of this campaign features advertisements with Hilary Duff and Wanda Sykes who overhear groups of teens and then tell them what they've said is insulting and to knock it off.  The most effective part of the television campaign is that Hilary Duff and Wanda Sykes call the kids out and then substitute a phrase like, "girl wearing a skirt as a top," or "sixteen-year-old boy with a cheesy mustache".  The campaign isn't preachy.  The technique approaches teens from a few directions--peer pressure, respect, and a little dose of intimidation.

The approach seems simple and I think it'll be effective, though I wonder why all  of the people who are calling the teens out on their language are female.  Would it be too uncharacteristic for a man to show concern about offensive language?

Virginia Postrel on Aesthetics

Virginia Postrel's main argument is that aesthetics are emerging as an important facet of life that provide enriching and substantive pleasure.  Postrel uses the loci of quality to structure her value hierarchy. It is apparent that Postrel is focusing on the loci of quality because she specifically mentions terms like unique, individual, and special.  She gives each of these elements and their relation to aesthetics ample consideration in her argument. The unique, beautiful, and pleasant aspects of aesthetics elevate it, writes Postrel, to a greater importance now than its ever held in the past.  Postrel supports this argument with examples of current design choices and consumer preferences.  She writes that with more aesthetic freedom comes more expression and more individual satisfaction.  Instinctually, we are attracted to the sensory elements of aesthetics.  This innate preferance for sense stimulation is changing the way that we approach aesthetics and how businesses are implementing them in order to satiate their clients.  According to this argument, aesthetic considerations are simply another facet of the reasoning that informs our choices.

 

Climate Change Research, Agendas, and Attacks: Two Approaches to Arguing the Issue

Let's take a look at two arguments surrounding climate change and how each of them disassemble and discredit the opposition's research in order to support their own claims. We'll start with an article from Rolling Stone that is in favor of legislation promoting restrictions on global warming and follow that with an article from the other side, a Fox News report that chastises the U.N. for fabricating research. By analyzing each of these articles, we'll get a look at how they construct their arguments and the assumptions they expect their readers to accept.


The Rolling Stone article, “As The World Burns,” pummels the oil, gas, and coal industries for undermining efforts to pass legislation that would curb emissions and slow global warming. The author Jeff Goodell’s argument boils down to, “The oil and coal industries deployed an unprecedented army of lobbyists, spent millions on misleading studies and engaged in outright deception to derail climate legislation.”


He writes that according to 2008’s campaign promises, this is about the time that we were expecting big changes to US and global climate change policy but due to aggressive lobbying aimed at debilitating carbon-restricting measures that would give the United States a leg up at the international climate summit in Copenhagen, all efforts at creating meaningful legislation have been stalled rerouted.


In the is article, Goodell’s claims of fact—the results of legislative votes, the dollar amounts of campaign contributions opposing a climate bill, and the number of lobbyists representing the coal and oil industries in Washington—are juxtaposed with claims of judgment like, “The Senate's failure to act helped torpedo the talks in Copenhagen, which not only failed to produce a binding treaty but postponed meaningful action until 2015. It has also left Obama with no clear strategy of how to move forward.” And “Our collective response to the emerging catastrophe verges on suicidal”.


Goodell underlines these claims with numbers and a historical analysis of congress’ actions and the concurrent actions of representatives of the coal and oil industries. He cites the results of studies on climate change and notes who they were funded by and their vested interests. In referencing those opposed to signing a climate change bill into law, Goodell writes, “The climate bill, they argued, was nothing more than a national energy tax that would cause energy prices to skyrocket and destroy American jobs. As evidence, they pointed to a study by the Heritage Foundation, long a purveyor of junk science favored by the energy industry. (The conservative think tank has received at least $500,000 from ExxonMobil and $3 million from funders with ties to Koch Industries, a major oil-refining company.) Not surprisingly, the Heritage study predicted economic disaster if the climate bill were signed into law: Electricity rates would jump by 90 percent, gas prices would increase by 74 percent, the average energy bill would rise by $1,500 a year, and as many as 2.5 million jobs would disappear.” Goodell makes skillful use of logos, by giving us the results of the study, and pathos by quickly and snidely casting those results in a disreputable light.


Goodell assumes that his readers are aware of the government’s inability to pass climate legislation and he is eager to point out the misleading tactics that have been used by its opponents. The use of this data also constitutes an ethical attack on the climate bill’s opposition. By using the phrase, “junk science favored by the energy industry,” and citing the money that various energy companies have given the Heritage Foundation, Goodell use of ethical warrants implicitly forces the reader to make a judgment against the ethics of the Foundation and of the industries that support it financially. Goodell’s very passionate attack on the industries and representatives who have worked against climate change initiatives aims to inspire, frustrate, and impassion the reader.


Gene J. Koprowski of Fox News is tackling the climate argument from a very different angle. In his article, U.N.’s Global Warming Report Under Fresh Attack for Rainforest Claims, Koprowski too uses scientific data to support his claims. His argument is riding on a wave of previous claims about misleading climate change research. “A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under new attack for yet another instance of what its critics say is sloppy science -- adding to a growing scandal that has undermined the credibility of scientists and policymakers who back the U.N.'s findings about global warming”. Koprowski approaches the issue of global warming with a large dose of skepticism and he assumes his readers will do the same. He writes that a study warning that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest is endangered by global warming was written by a “freelance journalist and green activist”—obviously hoping to undermine the credibility of the study’s author, and that the original report was, “barely related to the Amazon rainforest”.


Koprowski backs up his argument with quotes from critics of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change including a blog “skeptical of global warming” and Andrew Wheeler, the senior vice president of B&D Consulting’s Energy, Climate, and Environment practice. These sources of support appeal to the audience’s logos since the dissent stems from authoritative warrants that come from those familiar with the U.N.’s reports and well versed in approaching them from a critical angle. He also uses dissociation by taking what the reader may usually see as credible, in this case the U.N., and pinning it to the wall by exposing the flaws of its research.


Koprowski finishes his article with statistics from two recent studies that both conclude that interest in global warming has waned substantially over the past year. Initially, I wondered why Koprowski included this seemingly unrelated data but then I realized that this is another dissociative leap. By tying flawed research to studies finding dwindling public interest in climate change, Koprowski is expecting his readers to see global warming as a fringe issue that is full of misleading environmentalist propaganda and isn’t worth their time or interest.

Seattle + Sports

In Jerry Brewer's article, Fanatomy, he argues that Seattle has generally been ignored as a place where fervant fans come out to support successful sports franchises.  Seattle suffers from West Coast isolation and has historically had trouble hanging on to its sports teams (the recently relocated Sonics and the Pilots, who moved after only one season in Seattle).  Brewer argues that despite its isolation and the perception that Seattlites are more interested in promoting a culture that doesn't value sporting events as much as some other institutions (like museums, for instance), its fans prove otherwise.  These fans are passionate people, and despite Seattle's brief and mostly unsuccessful sports history, they make Seattle one of the most underrated sports towns in the nation.

Brewer writes  his article in a way that seems to validate current Seattle sports fans, remind those who haven't been to a game in a while what they love about it, and let the rest of us know what we're missing. Brewer argues that Seattle fans are a different breed of fan, one who doesn't show up just for the winning team, but is a dedicated follower even when the score tilts in the opponants favor (which it often does).  He adds that Seattle teams are often representative not only of Seattle, but of the entire Northwest, a point that isn't often brought to light when considering Seattle's fitness as a competitive and entertaining hub for sports.  Other teams in the nation have closer sports competitors, which adds to the tension of rivalries.  Seattle's fans, on the other hand encompass the entire region.  Brewer sees something in Seattle fans that goes beyond the game, a comraderie and passion that is funnelled into rooting for the home team whatever the weather.

Sharing Spaces

The rules that arise from a "communal" living space, a living situation where two or more people share a space are contingent on those living in the space and the restrictions that are outside of their control.  In my current living situation, there are two layers of rules, the explicit rules that are set in place by our landlord, and the rules that my housemate and I tacitly agree upon. 
The explict rules are usually uncontested and fair.  They are those that were initially outlined on our lease agreement and include things like not having pets, being responsible for paying the rent on time, and taking care of general maintenance duties. 
The implict rules fall under courteous conduct for the most part.  Since my housemate and I are good friends we usually split the chores and expenses, go in our rooms to have telephone conversations, and host guests after asking or notifying the other person.  What makes our implicit rule system function so smoothly is that we know each other rather well and are similar in our preferances for a comfortable and enjoyable living situation.  In a case where we had different ideas about what made a good living space, this implicit rule system would be much less likely to function well.  Because we agree on the implied rules, they seem fair. 
The criteria by which we evaluate these rules are comfort, safety, openness, respect, and fairness.  Most of the rules set in place by our landlord and those that we tacitly enforce are subjected to this kind of catagorical analysis.  If a rule seems like it infringes on of those expectations we begin to question its functionality and necessity. 

Press Release: SU Supports Haitian Victims With Jesuit Tradition

The disasterous situation caused by the earthquake in Haiti is inspiring Seattle University students to dig into the tradition of Jesuit institutions and turn their attention to helping its victims.  The Jesuit tradition of Seattle University and its commitment to helping the poor makes assisting the earthquake victims a critical issue. "This tragedy brings home to us their reality as our sisters and brothers in dire need," says Father Stephen Sundborg, Seattle University President,  "We must respond as individuals and as members of this university with its special commitment to the poor."

 Thursday night, Seattle University is hosting mass in honor of those impacted by the earthquake.  Seattle University students and affiliates who will be filling the tills at the next Sunday masses for victims of the earthquake.

Sundborg is asking students to attend  masses held in honor of the earthquake victims as well as encouraging them to offer their educational, human, and spiritual support.  The response he hopes to inspire is an "outpouring of our generosity and personal sacrifice, empowering those on the ground in Haiti to provide rescue, food, water, shelter, medicine, etc." 

Students are also being encouraged to turn their prayers toward Haiti and to apply the fruits of their education to helping others and offering support to fellow students.

In addition to the Thursday and Sunday masses, held in the Ecumenical Chapel and the Chapel of Saint Ignatius, the University is also offering emotional support through its Campus Ministry services, where Social Justice Minister Sean Bray will be spearheading the university's efforts.
 
In the near future, Seattle University will be partnering with Gonzaga University, another Jesuit institution in the region, in order to further assist the people of Haiti.

The ongoing debate: Should we be eating high fructose corn syrup?

The focus on health and obesity in America has led many to ask whether it is wise to consume high fructose corn syrup. It’s often difficult to navigate the storm of critics and proponents of a sweetener that is in some very unlikely places. Wrapped up in the debate are issues of health, food processing, government subsidies, and environmentalism.


Jennifer Goldstein of Prevention Magazine says that high fructose corn syrup is an easy target for those looking for a bad-guy on store shelves. Because it is in everything from salad dressing to soda, it’s a likely culprit for anyone looking for a product to blame for the obesity epidemic.


She writes that sugar and high fructose corn syrup have the same number of calories but, because there have been very few studies on high fructose corn syrup, its best to eat it in moderation since it isn’t yet clear whether or not it is safe. She says that the proponents of corn syrup are trying to mislead the public when they claim that high fructose corn syrup is natural since it is actually highly processed. Goldstein writes that though high fructose corn syrup might have indirectly contributed to rising obesity in Americans because it made sweet foods much more prevalent and affordable.


John S. White, a food and beverage consultant representing the Corn Refiners Association believes high fructose corn syrup has been unfairly blamed for causing an obesity epidemic in America and has been wrongly criticized as being unhealthy. White argues that high fructose corn syrup is one of food scientists’ best tools and a darn good sweetener to boot. He stresses that the nutritional profile of high fructose corn syrup is very similar to that of natural sweeteners.


According to White, high fructose corn syrup is more functional as a food additive because it has properties that make it convenient to manufacture and transport, more apt to stay fresh during transport and during a product’s shelf-life, and because it comes from corn and is produced in the United States, it is not vulnerable to hurricanes, which often decimate sugar cane crops in tropical regions. White also argues that some properties of high fructose corn syrup are highly desirable in foods. It makes cakes and breads brown and fragrant, creates chewy cookies, gives flavor to low-calorie energy bars, and enhances fruit and spice flavors.


Michael Pollan, author and environmentalist, wants conscious Americans to look beyond the grocery store when they think of high fructose corn syrup. Pollan argues that because corn is produced in a vast monoculture, it leads to pollution caused by fertilizer and pesticides. Since there are no other crops using the soil, nutrients are depleted, requiring fertilizer to make up the difference. He argues that these chemicals are responsible for the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and around the coasts. He also emphasizes that subsidies make corn cheap and easy to grow and that the surplus caused by the amount of corn makes it necessary to create products like high fructose corn syrup that can use the surplus of this product. Agreeing with Pollan, Author Eviana Hartman argues that American’s should look at the labels on their food and buy fewer products that contain high fructose corn syrup. Hartman argues that it’s environmentally responsible to forgo high fructose corn syrup in favor of local natural sweeteners like maple syrup and molasses.

Plea to a 14-Year Old Gamer

Everyone needs a vacation.  And when you're fourteen, enduring middle school, putting up with parents excessive pleas to do chores, and pushing yourself to the brink with hours of grueling hockey practice (not to mention the two hour drive to and from said practice), a physical vacation isn't nearly enough.  You need a mental vacation.  A little psychic rejuvenation.  You need to downshift the synapses and kick back.  And when all it takes to get a little relaxation is flopping on the couch, sliding on a headset and firing up the X-Box 360 (aka the 360) for a round of blowing the brains out of friends and strangers, who could blame you?  Its fun, its social, you can do it on the couch, and it involves a gun.
The thing is, as soon as the little green light goes on and you sign in to X-Box Live, your existence in that other world--the one with parents, chores, and such--fades into the distance.  And the more time you spend in the game the more that distance is felt when you exit it.  Your trigger finger may be a blur of action but your conversations are suffering.  I like games.  I like guns (the virtual ones anyway).  But I don't like that every time I call you I have to stay on hold while you finish a running around a bombed out warehouse throwing grenades and gathering enemy intelligence.  Or that you put me on speaker phone so that I can 'Give a Shout Out' to your online buddies over your headset and listen to their grunts and distracted replies.  I'm glad you're including me in all this, but its really not my thing.  
While I like that you have a hobby and I understand that gaming is a big part of your life, as a big sister, I'd love it if you'd consider pushing pause for 5 minutes so that we can catch up without the roar of shrapnel clanging in the background.
Yes, everyone loves a vacation, but let me tell you a little something about it.  One thing about vacation (even a gaming vacation) is that its best shared with the people you love and those who love you.  If you do it too often and you always go alone, sometime, when you finally decide to extinguish that green light and come back home, you may find that you're the only one there.

Weekly Writing 2

1. Eric Wilson, in his article The Triumph of the Size 12s (New York Times, 01/13/2010) writes about Crystal Renn, a size 12 plus-size model who has been very successful in the fashion industry as of late, booking spreads in Baazar, Vanity Fair, Glamour, and Vogue. Wilson attributes Renn’s popularity and the recent proclivity of high fashion magazines to include spreads or entire issues featuring plus-size models to the public outcry against “alarmingly thin models”. These magazines have been encouraged, says Wilson, by positive reader response to such features. According to Wilson, plus-size models are often criticized for being smaller than the average woman (a size-14) and often retouched to look larger. Crystal Renn, in her book, Hunger, complains that normal is the new overweight and professionals in her industry are often telling her that she doesn’t look fat. Stephen Gen, the editor of V, the most recent magazine to devote and entire issue to plus-size models, remarked to Renn that she “doesn’t look big”. Wilson closes with a quote from Renn’s book, “I’m fighting for something,” Ms. Renn said. “I believe fashion can be a place of diversity. It’s not going to happen overnight, but do you want it to?”



2. In Eric Wilson’s article, The Triumph of the Size 12’s in the New York Times, Wilson writes about Crystal Renn, a size 12 model who has become quite popular in the fashion world. Renn, like many other plus-size models has gone from starving herself to fit into a size 2 to being celebrated for her crossover to mainstream modeling in publications like V, Glamour, and Vogue as a size 12. Wilson is correct to assess and address this phenomenon in his article. The fashion world has recently made such a fetish out of plus-size models that plus-size models’ photos are often retouched not to make them thinner, like thin models or celebrities, but appear larger or more curvaceous. It is a “perverse reality” in the fashion world that plus-size models or those with visible breasts or hips are fetishized. Wilson is right to argue that Renn is triumphant. She is the first plus-size model to break out into the mainstream. Even with the retouching, a healthy model is a better example than one that is unhealthy. Continued coverage of this issue, especially following the prevalence of anorexic-looking models, can only positively influence the public and the fashion industry.

3. In Eric Wilson’s article, The Triumph of the Size 12’s in The New York Times, Wilson argues that Crystal Renn, a size-12 model has become very popular due to a backlash in the fashion world against size-2 models and as a response to a call for diversity in fashion magazines. Wilson assumes that the inclusion of plus-size models is a turn toward acceptance of larger-sized women by the fashion industry and a turn towards diversification of the modeling industry. The fact remains though, that each magazine that includes a photo spread or devotes an entire article to plus-size models does so under the pretense that they should be celebrated for the risk they’re taking. They do so, not because these models are being accepted in the industry, but to make a point and sell more issues. Renn is only one model who is being accepted and shown off so that the fashion industry can congratulate themselves on how progressive they are.


4. The rhetorical situation: The author is a reporter for the New York Times. The author was prompted to write the article as a response to the recent conversations surrounding plus-size models and especially as a response to the issue of V magazine featuring only plus size models. Wilson writes under the constrains of the New York Times, a liberal leaning though very reputable national newspaper. The audience is readers of the NYT, and especially the readers of the Styles section of the NYT. Because of the publication in which this article appears, it’s expected that it will be largely representative of the situation and the dialogue surrounding an issue.
Crystal Renn is featured as a representation of a larger movement and perhaps the forbearer of that movement and Wilson brings up the issues surrounding her popularity, the fact that plus size models may feel pressure to do things like wear padding or expect that their photos will be retouched to make them appear even larger. This article appears at a time when the fashion industry appears to be at a crossroads, there are two sides, the older fashion community who believes that plus-size models are a fad and should not be a part of a clan where anything outside of sample size is not acceptable. The other side of this argument comes from a new movement that is striking out against unhealthy models. This side argues that models should be representative of the real population, of a healthy weight, and of diverse shapes and sizes.

Letter to the Editor: Response to Sue Rahr

In her address to the community ["Community kindness helps  law enforcers cope with tragic loss in their ranks", Opinion, Jan. 3] Police Chief Sue Rahr was surprised by the massive amount of community support following the recent attacks on officers in our region.

It remains a sad reality that it takes an event like the recent shootings to inspire our communities to support police officers.  Under normal circumstances, we're more likely to begrudgingly accept a ticket, silently cursing the officer as he drives away than to appreciate the enforcement of law and justice in our region.

 We need more efforts to bridge the gap between the people and the police on a regular basis, not only after a tragedy. With more interaction and more responsibility from the community perhaps the reigning sentiment would always be one of support, but despite the current community support, its going to take many more collaborative efforts from both sides to bridge the perceived gap between the law enforcement and the people.

Identifying Commonplaces: Sue Rahr's Thank You

In her address to the community at large thanking them for their support of Seattle police, Seattle Police Chief Sue Rahr makes use of several commonplaces including degree, conjecture, and possibility. These commonplaces reflect ideological convergences in a culture using rhetorical tactics   Chief Rahr uses September 11th, the perennially raw cultural touchstone, to connect the officers' feelings of tragedy, desolation, and helplessness to those felt by the American people.  This captures the degree to which the attacks on officers reshaped the force's attitudes and sense of security.   Rahr follows this with a conjecture couched in a possibility.   Following the attacks, the development of an "us against them" mentality amongst the officers--a possibility--was crippled by an outpouring of community support.  If the community had not supported the officers so visibly, its possible that they may have been loathe to trust people who were not members of the police force.   The conjecture is that a support system of community exists behind the officers. 

The Rise of the Imperfect (and Funny) Romance

In the late 2000's, a new kind of romantic comedy came into being, with roots in Napoleon Dynamite and Chocolat, successful indie films like (500) Days of Summer, Juno, and Away We Go reflected a new side of romance--the fumbling twenty- or thirty-something with insecurites, imperfections, quirks, and charm.  The teenager making mature decisions with a killer sense of humor, spouting wry truths and embracing the inevitiblity of life.  Films like these got the mainstream movie industry a little closer to depicting the human repertoire of anxieties, doubts, vulnerabilites, and triumphs in love by employing small-scale failures and successes and painting in nuances instead of grand gestures.   I expect to see more indie-films gone mainstream that take boy-meets-girl and affairs of the heart to a whole new level by using the endearing discomfort of reality and peeling away the glaze of perfection that has surrounded successful films of the past decade.

Why Joe Bar? I'll Tell You Why.

 Just off Broadway and across the street from the Harvard Exit Theatre sits Joe Bar.  Its much smaller than most of Capitol Hill's coffee and tea establishments and it feels more like a product of its neighborhood than a destination.  The interior is very comfortable, tables for two or three are nestled in the windows or on the small second floor balcony area.  Its warm and quiet inside save for the muffled hum of conversation and the periodic squeak of the door.  The baristas not only prepare drinks (which are delivered to your table) but also a large selection of crepes and the occasional soup and sandwich special.  Everytime I've been to Joe Bar, the same barista has been working with the owner bustling around in the background.  Both of them are always friendly and never rushed.  The intimacy of enjoying a drink and sharing the company of friends and neighbors at Joe Bar makes it the Seattle coffee shop that I frequent most often.

Weekly Writing One

The second tenant of Dr. Peter Marston’s definition of rhetoric, “rhetoric is addressed”, is especially relevant to Michelle Obama’s speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. According to Marston, rhetoric is addressed to an audience and the specific audience of a speech dictates how it is delivered.  This includes the speaker’s choice of words and the content and themes of the message itself. At political events like the DNC, the present audience is as much a part of the speech as the orator.  The “addressed” portion of the speech becomes so pronounced that it seems like by analyzing how the rhetoric addresses the audience, Marston’s other rhetorical tenants also come into view. 

At the very beginning of the speech, Michelle identifies herself the way that she wants the audience to see her, as a sister, a wife, a mom, and a daughter.  She casts the audience in a role of middle-class, hard-working America.  These rhetorical choices are both situational and advisory. Rhetoric is advisory since the rhetor’s speech reflects the values and world-view of its audience.  And this particular rhetorical situation allows Michelle to work in the realm of middle class American culture and to rely on stories and anecdotes about American values and hard work.  Because Michelle is addressing middle-class Americas, she brings up middle-class concerns—having only one working parent, worrying about education, missing a family member who is in the military.  She casts her and her husband’s families as regular middle class families—her blue-collar father and stay at home mother make sure that their children are educated despite the hard work involved. The hidden mastery of this speech is evident in how Michelle uses examples that draw the audience to stand by her, relating with her (and, by extension, her husband), instead of gazing at her objectively as a politician.

With live and repeated broadcasts over the internet and on television, the wide expanses of engaged and emotion-touched faces, brilliant blue signs emblazoned with "Michelle" or, "Common Values, Common Purpose", and Michelle Obama’s gentle and encouraging speaking style are all stylistic rhetorical choices that are dictated by how the speaker wishes to impact the audience.  The style of the speech does not only include the verbal message, but also the elements that make up the atmospheric and visual aesthetic of the rhetoric of Michelle’s speech.  The latter sign reinforces the idea of unity that transcends hardship and celebrates achievement through hard work, collaboration, and sacrifice—ideas that Michelle emphasized with stories about her father's MS, Barack Obama’s single mother, financial hardship, and parenting.  The present and viewing audiences were certainly in mind when the aesthetic choice was made to incorporate signs that show support for Michelle and the values she addresses.  These images are recast in video format as a sea of waving blue signs with Michelle’s speech giving the narrative behind the images.  This rhetorical styling, employing visuals and a scale that complements the speech, gives the audience, whether present or viewing from afar, the impression of a speaker who shares their values with widespread agreement from other audience members.

            Michelle Obama recognizes her audience at the DNC and addresses them accordingly with her emphasis on values, her manner of addressing middle-class concerns, and the larger visual reinforcement of her message.  Throughout her address, she repeatedly links herself and her husband with the American people by employing situational, advisory, and stylized rhetorical elements that are tailored specifically to her audience.

First Exercise

In the text, "They Say/ I Say", the authors write that the best academic writing is posed in a discursive format, that is to say, as a response to an argument or as a contribution to an ongoing discussion.  According to the authors, the most effective academic writing relies on analysing what others have said and contextualizing the response. Based on the course description of this class,  rhetoric is an explorative process resulting in the construction of an argument. It is heavily research based and relies on critical analysis and the sharing and revising of ideas.  These two concepts agree that rhetoric and argument are shared discussions, they are not set in stone and require research, contribution, discussion, and response.