Second Paper

For paper number 2 I am going to write about the Clinton crisis that happened during his second term as president. I am going to examine what went on between him and Monica, and relate things to certain redaings we were assinged so far from the beginning of class. For exmaple Clinton made an apology, and we talked about that in class, so I will discuss that a bit. Also, there was a bit of persuasion going on by both sides of trhe white house, and I will talk about that and analyze the topic in the eyes of our authors thus far.

Paper # 2 thoughts

So I was just reading alot of other people's blog postings on their papers. I actually wrote (started to write) a paper, but then after the last class on Tuesday, I realized I really did not like the topic. It was not something that interested me in the least, so I decided to make a "fresh start". I have nother class this semester that is sort of connectyed to the material we talk about and read in Advanced Comp. (The class is called culture and Media with professor Schwartz... just in case you were wondering). Anyway, we were in that class and we started to talk about slang. He was asking all of us different words we use for slang and what they mean. Then he went into the origins of the words. Why did they take on the meanings that they did? How did they get this way? When you really think about it, it makes alot of sense. How did the word "cool" mean "popular"? So I decided that this was a good opportunity to make this my topic for paper #2. Hopefully I can get into how they bring a community together, and use some quotes from the language war, and emergent publics. I didn't like Trust Us were experts too much, so I might stay away from that book. Just some thoughts I had. Let me know if anyone thinks it is a bad idea.

Topic for Paper 2...

For my paper, I was affected by the way common sense affects language. I want to write about the ways common sense influences our actions. In a situation that merits the response "Well it's common sense not to do that/ do that. " I am going to examine the guidelines of common sense and why common sense tells us we can/can not do something in a given event or at a given time. I'll use Lakoff's ideas on common sense as a reference, of course. I will also use "Trust Us, we're experts!" for examples as well.

Altering Common Sense

I was affected by some of Angus's arguments in Emergent Publics. He suggests that the changes which are necessary for sustaining democracy in America require a shift in America's perception of what the solutions are. The altering of common sense one could say. But how could this be? Common sense is the foundation on which we all move: common sense is the laws of physics, the color of the sky, the life-death cycle. Could there be anything more difficult than stripping and restocking the elements of our common sense? In my essay, I plan on interpreting what is meant by the altering of common sense, how it could possibly be done, and what it means to Americans.

Paper #2

For my second paper I am continuing the discussion from last class about Lakoff's interpretation of apology. My argument will be how people should only have to apologize for things they have personally done themselves and for nothing else. I also plan on showing the differences between an apology and feeling remorse for someone because I felt that there was some misinterpretation of that in last week's class. As of right now I have only used Lakoff's book because my paper is still only in its beginning stages.

Goals for Paper 2

I have long been interested in the rather recently coined political technique called "doublespeak." It is a way of conveying a particular meaning, which rhetoric does, through softened, if you will, language. Doublespeak’s trickery is its real genius; it not only makes terrible, sometimes inhumane acts justified, but it makes the person who uses the device (most of the time a political leader) sound superlative. Take, for instance, the candy-coated validation of the Iraqi war by George Bush when he said we must continue in the war because of “unsubstantiated statements, for the lack of evidentiary support, and for the purported manipulation of intelligence data.” This, to the public, may come across as pure linguistic genius, but it is nothing more than unnecessary banter. My job, then, is to examine why this rhetorical device known as “doublespeak” successfully manipulates or dismisses public opinion in light of the events that can, and do, directly affect them. Perhaps Angus would agree with this technique, disputing that it propels the public to understand political discourse so that they can form opinions based on the arguments beneath the language. Lippman and Bernays, in contrast, would and probably do disagree with this tactic, as it not only disguises human error—for example, the use of military terms like “collateral damage” which actually means the unintentional death of innocent civilians by military action—but it also displaces that fault on other people.

paper 2

I'm analyzing the way the republicans and conservative religious leaders frame the policies of the right with religion to get swing votes and pump up their base so they go out and vote. Although I am looking at a speech given by President Bush to a group of southern Baptists most of my paper focuses on press releases given out by the Family Research Council about Justice Sunday-Stopping the Filibuster against People of Faith and Justice Sunday II-God Save the United States and this Honorable court. These were events on Sunday evenings that were broadcast on television and over the radio. They used religion to talk about politics and the fight against liberals. I was expecting them to have a small audience and feature speakers who were radical conservatives with no real power in politics but Justice Sunday II featured six current Congressmen and was watched in 79 million households. This is not a huge part of the American population but it is still a significant number of people.

paper 2

I am going to write on the Apartheid in South Africa, and how through the rhetoric of the white South African government the public was persuaded to think that the Apartheid was a good idea. I think I am also going to find documents from Ronald Reagan, who continued to trade and have commerce with South Africa, regardless of the way they were treating their citizens. I'm not really sure what text I am going to refer it back to. I'm still in the process of researching the topics... so we'll see where it goes from there. Good luck everyone!

Thought about paper #2...

After last Tuesday's class, I feel somewhat compelled to write about the patterns of discourse in relation to human responsibility. I found Lakoff's writing about patterns in apologies very interesting and I want to go further into that. Also, I would like to use some of her arguments to discuss one major argument that we discussed in class as well. I want to talk about the act of apologies, themselves, and then I want to try to relate that back to certain degrees of accountability we should/ should not have for issues of the past. A rhetorical analysis of metaphors and references will be key in my paper. I want to find out why we feel guilty or ashamed to apologize for acts of the past that we were not present for, yet still affect us day to day. I also want to figure out why it seems it's harder to apologize for something when it is evident that we are wrong in a certain situation. The art of skirting apologies with generic half-assed "I'm sorry"s is another area that I would like to look firther into.

Trust us...

The reading of Rampton and Stauber to me, was definitely the hardest of the readings thus far. In the beginning of the first chapter they started to discuss Microsoft and the claims against them in general. Microsoft's idea behind their public backing of the product is actually ingenius in itself. Getting the public to be all for their product so that no other product could pass them in sales. They also use software that is specific to Microsoft and will only work with other Microsoft products, which is actually really annoying for any college student who has to work with not only their own computer, but the computers of their university as well.
One part of the reading that I thought was interesting was when they say that advertisement are the obvious kinds of propaganda, and they're what we're used to seeing every day. But the third party technique in its more subtle forms is designed to make their audience numb to what they're hearing or seeing or experiencing. They say, "You'll never know when a PR agency is being effective, you'll just find your views slowly shifting." This is kind of scary to think about; that we might be that numb to some kinds of advertising that we don't even see it as advertising at all. We just view something in a completely different light and we assume that it's because our attitude has shifted. Really though, it's someone elses attitude or views. They state, "Every new means of communication carries within itself a means of deception."
They talk about how public relations industries have become invisible because their ideas and persuation is virtually everywhere. We don;t even see them as advertisements anymore, more of a way of life.
They talk about expert opinion as opposed to the feelings of the general public. But really, the general public has no say because we see things like, "nine of of ten doctors agree..." and we believe it because we are not experts, ourselves. So we are generally an easily manipulated public. But how far will these experts go to manipulate and control our perceptions of reality? It's actually kind of scary, if you think about it. They talk about how whoever gets its version of the truth out there most effectively, wins. So then really, are we believing someone who lies extremely effectively, or do we really make our own decisions?
The section of science and the "intelligent few" really shed some light for me. The "democracy" that we have is seen as dangerous, and that's why we leave the decisions up to a select few. Bernays added to this theory by saying that being herdlike led people to be remarkably susceptible to leadership. Therefore, he saw public relations as an applied science. So our leaders could use this idea and bring order from chaos.
John Scalon really made me think when he stated that truth can be liquid, not solid. "What seems to be true is not necessarily the case when we look at it and we dissect it...whose truth are we talking about, your truth, or my truth?" That basically states the fact that sometimes we are not even conscious of our own decisions, even attitudes and beliefs because of all that is going on around us. We have people trying to persuade us in one ear, and then we have our inherent morals and beliefs, but who wins in the end?

The Language War

Lakoff calls herself a linguist, and through the reading I couldn't really tell that at all. I just saw her as a debator of rhetorical situation more than language itself. She really gets into the issue of gendered discourse and I think you really had to read between the lines to get her ideas and controversies about the topic. She discusses language choices and the use of metaphors in writing that can persuade us as readers, or get us to think in a certain way. One part of the reading she talks about how we cannot let word associations and word meaning interfere with our general understanding of issues or products. This is basically what I wrote about in my first paper. I discussed the fact that the media has a code for us as individuals and it plays on our weaknesses and our fears in order to get us to buy. Government does this as well when they want us to agree on a particular issue or when they want us to understand what they're saying, without really understanding it at all. They try to manipulate us so that they we are on their side. In my paper I stated that the media makes us feel good about ourselves at first, but always keeps us needing them in the end. "They create a situation where we create our own fear, and therefore we need their products to feel safe again." I think that this is basically what Lakoff is trying to convey to us in her book.
One specific part of the reading that I thought was pretty confusing as I read it was the apolgy section. The phrase, "I'm sorry I stepped on your cat," as opposed to, "I'm sorry your cat got stepped on," or, "Why'd you leave the cat in this room?!," or, "Can't the stupid animal watch where it's going?" all shift the blame of the issue itself. When you say that you're sorry the cat got stepped on, your not actually taking blame or accountability for doing the act, itself. When you ask why did you leave the cat here in the first place, you're actually shifting blame to the innocent party completely. When you say can't the stupid animal watch where it's going you're shifting blame to the cat, the innocent animal whom you stepped on. I now see how government officials use this technique to get out of certain situations. Apologizing is humbling and a lot of people have a very hard time doing this, especially if they know they are wrong in the situation. Certain government officials will sometimes shift blame entirely, or apologize without taking responsibility. This is kind of an art, if you think about it. Because they have the power to say that they apologized for something that they never even held themselves accountable for.
In class we discussed this in firther detail about history in general. I would not have felt comfortable apologizing for acts of the past that I was not even around for. Plus, the issues weren't even things that I agreed with in my life today. But some students pointed out that if I had lived back then, my whole mindet would definitely be different, so really, who am I to say what I would have agreed with or been against? Things that I never even really thought about was that fact that history repeats itself and the past affects the present. We also discussed practical reasoning for apologizing for past issues like trade with countries and the direct link of the wealth that Americans now have with the past. I now would agree that there is significance in apologizing for certain things, even if I had no direct coorelation to them to begin with. It actually helps the whole cause in general. I now kind of see that I was pretty ignorant to this logical kind of thinking before.

Connections

As I researched my selected "instance" in public discourse, the gay marriage debate, I couldn't help but wonder how I could make more of a connection to our reading material in class. First, I thought I could take a look at the language surrounding the debate to see if I could find frames or appeals to "common sense."

Just before I started researching that, I thought of class discussions that involved people saying things such as "I can't believe gay marriage was such a big issue in the 2004 campaign. " That, in turn, made me think of Angus who talked about politicians deciding what the big issues were. How many times have you heard someone say they should have focused more on the war, or the economy.

So before finding arguments on the gay marriage debate, I went to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) website. It turns out, that in all three presidential debates, consisting of about 55 questions total, there was only one question about gay marriage. The Iraq War and Homeland Security were the subject of about 22 questions.

So, in addition to the language in that particular debate on gay marriage, I thought I might look into why people thought it was such an important issue. Obviously, the politicians were focusing more on the war and security in their debates. Maybe people actually do care about morality (how awful) in their everyday lives and just thought they should care more about the war.

Trust us, yeah right!

Isn’t it amazing that everyone in some point in their lives will ask for an expert opinion? How are these experts manipulating us into believing they are experts? According to Rampton and Strauber there are two different types of experts, the mad-men “spin-doctors” that linger behind the scenes and the selected and cultivated readily prepared for an audience. The persuaders can reach groups in the large public by contracting leaders and/or experts that mold public opinion. This third party technique can prove worthy and valuable if applied properly.
Personally, my attention was focused on the statement that forbids the federal government by law from spending money on public relations. Excuse me? So the heading for PR is now Public affairs and the attributes stay the same, how convenient. Who said there can never be enough loop holes? And I bet you can find an expert to justify and concur. So who do we trust?

Trust us, yeah right!

Isn’t it amazing that everyone in some point in their lives will ask for an expert opinion? How are these experts manipulating us into believing they are experts? According to Rampton and Strauber there are two different types of experts, the mad-men “spin-doctors” that linger behind the scenes and the selected and cultivated readily prepared for an audience. The persuaders can reach groups in the large public by contracting leaders and/or experts that mold public opinion. This third party technique can prove worthy and valuable if applied properly.
Personally, my attention was focused on the statement that forbids the federal government by law from spending money on public relations. Excuse me? So the heading for PR is now Public affairs and the attributes stay the same, how convenient. Who said there can never be enough loop holes? And I bet you can find an expert to justify and concur. So who do we trust?

How did America amass her wealth?

The United Fruit Co.
(1950)

Pablo Neruda

When the trumpet sounded, it was
all prepared on the earth,
and Jehovah parceled out the earth
to Coca-Cola, Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, and other entities:
The Fruit Company, Inc.
reserved for itself the most succulent,
the central coast of my own land,
the delicate waist of America.
It rechristened its territories
as the "Banana Republics"
and over the sleeping dead,
over the restless heroes
who brought about the greatness,
the liberty and the flags,
it established the comic opera:
abolished the independencies,
presented crowns of Caesar,
unsheathed envy, attracted
the dictatorship of the flies,
Trujillo flies, Tacho flies,
Carias flies, Martinez flies,
Ubico flies, damp flies
of modest blood and marmalade,
drunken flies who zoom
over the ordinary graves,
circus flies, wise flies
well trained in tyranny.

Among the bloodthirsty flies
the Fruit Company lands its ships,
taking off the coffee and the fruit;
the treasure of our submerged
territories flows as though
on plates into the ships.

Meanwhile Indians are falling
into the sugared chasms
of the harbors, wrapped
for burial in the mist of the dawn:
a body rolls, a thing
that has no name, a fallen cipher,
a cluster of dead fruit
thrown down on the dump.

Translated by Robert Bly

Notes:

The United Fruit Co. is a real company incorporated in New Jersey in 1899 by Andrew Preston and Minor C. Keith. United Fruit became the major force in growing, transporting, and merchandising Latin American produce, especially bananas. The company is also notorious for its involvement in politics and is a symbol for many people of "Yankee" imperialism and oppression.

Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Tacho (Nicaragua), Carias (Honduras), Martinez (El Salvador), and Ubico (Guatemala) were all political dictators.

Pablo Neruda (1904-1973) won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1971

Source: (Kirszner&Mandell Eds., Literature: Reading Reacting Writing, Compact 4th ed., p818-819)

The Third Party Technique is Awesome

On page 17 Rampton and Stauber explain a specific strategy in the PR world known as the "third party technique." It is quite simple and accounts for the many "experts" (i.e. scientists, doctors, historians) that jump in on sometimes random issues to prove someone else's point: hence the title of the section--"Someone Else's Mouth." The view taken on this technique, if you will, is, of course, a negative one. Rampton and Stauber perhaps see this as a violation of the real "truth" behind certain issues, and rightly so. However, as a completely independent marketing strategy, it is very effective.

People will trust and believe these "third party experts," and since the overall intellect of the public isn't always astounding then why shouldn't they be able to take advantage of that. I understand that if we looked at this with Lippman in mind, he would thoroughly reject this idea, but it does not necessarily attack the public as mush as the medieval example used by Rampton and Stauber does. Perhaps I don't see this being used in other arenas besides advertising, but even if I did, the public still has this awareness and knowledge to construct their own opinions. If this technique was completely secret, then I may think otherwise. Or, maybe I should just read a little more, which I think I will.

I didn't realize that one profession was responsible for everything that's wrong with our society, well that's at least what Rampton and Stauber want us to believe. To tell the truth I came in to reading this book a little on guard, I’m public relations minor and so it's hard for me to go read a book bashing my chosen profession with out feeling defensive. They only mention in one short sentence that public relations has some use beyond giving us fake science so we do something that's bad for us like breathe in toxic fumes. Every public relations class I’ve had has talked about how to get your organization's name out there for the good they do and what to do if something goes wrong. When dealing with a crisis we were told not to lie and never to stonewall the media. I must have missed the class on how to manipulate the entire world to believe what you want in a giant conspiracy using fake experts. I will admit that ethics is a problem in public relations and something that needs to be addressed but I really think Rampton and Stauber are blowing it out of proportion. From what I’ve seen most people who work in the public relations field are good people and do their jobs with integrity.

What experts?

I couldn't really find much on the book. But I guess my own opinion is just as good. I do hate that a lot of societies use propagation against their own to corrupt a society into the way they want them. But what is a perfect society? If it never existed how do you make it. I learned in history about Romans having such a close-knit society yet they killed eachother out of spite and did some crazy things that I could never imagine being aloud in our society. A lot of people say "that's the life!" well I don't think that at all.... I don't believe we were put on this earth for a Utopian society that is free from negative energy. Life is a mystery and people need to start concentrating on themselves rather than trying to manipulate everyone else because we're in this world alone and can't rely on anyone else. All you have is yourself...you make the decisions for yourself...someone else shouldn't. I guess maybe this subject bothers me because i've been watching the news all week and I can just see how our world is so corrupt and manipulative. There are never happy touchy stories on the news...all news is bad. How can society be happy when all they are exposed to is bad?

Trust No One, Their are no experts

I did a yahoo search for "Trust Us, We're Experts!" and found mainly sites selling the book, and book reviews. The book reviews said pretty much what was expected...great book...Displaying great truths....IM really just propaganda myself.... The reviews were all done by people praising the book, so of course they were just used as positive propaganda for Rampton and Stauber.

The book brought up some valid points, many that we had already been addressed in our readings such as humanity is inadequate to make their own decisions and must be swayed by propaganda. The aspect I found the most interesting was the third party propaganda, in particular Mothers Opposing Pollution. If you remember correctly, "this was a campaign said to be set up by mothers who were against plastic containers for pollution reasons." When realistically it was a group working for association of Liquadpaperboard Carton manufacture. I mean come on, how much lower can you go. For some reason that particular issue really sickened me...

The book was ironic because in a sense it was doing exactly what it was telling its readers to be aware of: presenting propaganda is such a discrete fashion that we are not aware of it. Sneaky...Very sneaky.. Essentially though, there is no away around it. In a society where you want a product to sell you must present propaganda or you will be unsuccessful. It just makes me feel less like an individual and more like a robot when it's laid out in front of me. I've been critically assessing everything as propaganda since ive started this course... and sadly sometimes i think it would be better to be naive about the whole process. But I guess that why it continues because most people are naive about it, or at least claim to be.

side note: Was Dr.Rapaille the same guy from the persuaders?

Unbiased Experts

I did an Internet search on the book and found what I had expected. Watchdog sites. There's nothing wrong with watchdogs; they're actually quite necessary. However, I find it interesting that no dogs seem to be watching Rampton and Stauber.

Even the quotes from the back of the book are misleading. Talk about experts with your own point of view. They do all that talking about companies trying to make people seem separate from their cause, and Rampton and Stauber do the same thing. I looked up some of the people quoted on the back cover. Barbara Ehrenreich is a political activists who heroically took minimum wage jobs to write and sell a book. She also publicly dumped out a Dasani at a conference because Coke is apparently violating human rights in Columbia.

Jeremy Rifkin leads organizations such as the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation and the Beyond Beef Coalition. He wants people to eat less beef because cows release methane. Aside from the fact that cows release less than fresh water, I'd like to point out that, without beef consumption, more cows would live longer and produce more methane.

I felt the need to look them up because I didn't notice a periodical next to their name. Usually anyone on the back of the book has some sort of organizational affiliation. The USA Today review seemed the least fanatical, so I left it alone. The first two obviously wanted to start the wave.

Needless to say, I was interested in Brill's Content, the periodical. Brill's Content had gotten itself into trouble in the past. It is a for profit magazine with corporate affiliations that attacked a Time article. Unfortunately, everything Brill's Content had said was false turned out to be true. Another company bought it in 2001.

In essence, I'm merely pointing out that they didn't exactly get unbiased and objective quotes for the back cover. Even the Center for Media and Democracy seems a bit biased. Their web page has a fist above a sign that says "STOP GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROPAGANDA." Ironically, it doesn't say "buy ours instead."

Lakoff and Angus

Angus's view of the rhetorical situation is based on an image of community forming and learning. His portable handbook addresses social movements and democracy, which he invites his readers to bring their arguments to the table. It is clear that we as people need to spend more time discussing and affirming laws, values, norms, and especially governmental concerns. In this cause democracy does seem to be a radical concept. I mean people can slow things down, forfeiting democracy so few people can rule, and then the wide range of power had disintegrated. All because people have no time or care to little? Now considering this, according to Angus people should come together and determine the to-do's for democracy across assembly halls and universities world wide, he's putting the cart before the horse. Personally I think educating others on democracy is necessary, for more then some are completely ignorant and do leave the power in just few dominant hands. Helping others to form their own opinion on the right issues could change how we embrace democracy as a people.

Lakoff discusses language and discourse to the extent of showing the reader how to determine if there is more than one meaning to a concept or concepts to a meaning. We make choices of what we want to say in words in our everyday language which effect conveyance of meaning. I love the example of the apology, who really likes to say they’re sorry or admit they were wrong. There are ways to imply those meanings without using the exact pervious words like. “Wow, you were right,” acknowledging that you were wrong by telling the other they were right- not directly saying, “I was wrong.” I thought she was a structuralist in her way of breaking down language and word connotations, as I argued in class; my argument was shut down… I guess I still have more to interpret and analyze myself.

Robin Lakoff: Unapologetically Liberal

An author's political stance can often be obvious or can easily be extrapolated from a writing (Lakoff is crystal clear about his political orientation in "Don't Think of An Elephant") but what I find sort of comforting is R. Lakoff's need to explain herself. She has some very reasonable doubts concerning objective truth, and she is in good company. Why attempt to write objectively if you are ultimately being dishonest in doing so? Lakoff's openly liberal stance could potentially repel any number of conservatives, but none the less I find it respectable that she freely admits her subjectivity. Being honest seems like such a difficult thing to do in the media. It seems like a rarity.

I was considering Lakoff's observations about political apologies, and it seems to be the case that no matter what is done, no matter how terribly mistaken a politician might be, the savvy political being must remain "on top," and should pull some sort of rhetorical trickery. A synthetic apology of sorts. Never lose face. There are exceptions to this (another rarity), but apparently the political system that is in place discourages genuine admission of error. Is this a vestige from the days of the infallible absolute monarchs or evidence of the public's need to believe those in power are not making mistakes? Either way, it is disheartening, and somewhat baffling that those who are the making the most dire of decisions cannot afford the admission of their wrongs, and therefore must always keeping moving forward with their mistakes for the sake of consistency.

paper 1

In the first paper written for advanced comp., I think that i had some important information about how the media keeps us in a fearful mindset so that are always needing them for "security" or "guidance." "I feel a certain connection with things that have been important in my life and relevent to me, personally. We can see that through this, maybe this is my "code." But no two people have the same exact "code," debending on experience, situations, and many other factors based on individuality.
The persuaders also know how to play on our weaknesses or negativity. In addition to this, they also play a big role in how we view ourselves and can use this to their advantage. They can make us feel good with a product that honors our insecurities, and then they can make us feel bad about those same insecurities with a billboard or commercial for something else.
My whole paper basically studied why exactly certain products are more successful than others. This "code" really holds some meaning, even though I was not so much of a believer before. The media seems to be able to lead us to believe something that we, ourselves, are not aware.

Language War or Love of Language

After reading Lakoff's Language War I was immediately struck by the many pertinent, and quite excessive, realities it revealed. I especially found her segment on apologetics interesting. So many times we see how apologies, or the absence of them, can calm or ignite a situation. When she points out how they work according to gender she says that, "Women seem especially prone to this usage, apologizing even when no discernible wrong has been done or the speaker has had no imaginable part in the wrongdoing that has occurred." Though she simply grazed the topic, it felt as though she gave us part of her take on the rhetorical situation. She perhaps feels that we as Americans are too immersed in our "rich" history, along with how we have come to where we are, that we forget what we need to do as citizens. She says that, up until the 90's, politicians didn't offer apologies. However, they may owe it to other countries, as well as their own, for they have stripped Americans of their right to make "meaning" in their lives. She continues by saying that even our culture is created by these people who are able to use and manipulate us through language. She argues that our culture is a "construction of shared meanings." Lakoff continues with this idea when she looks at the very concept of reality. She understands that language is the most "real" yet unreal tool in our lives. Reality is created through language, even though language itself is not concrete. Therefore, we have, and will continue to be, unconsciously manipulated and deprived of some basic human thinking. The keyword in the last sentence was "unconsciously," because if we as Americans simply delight in these highlighted and “Hollywoodized,” if you will, areas of the human experience, than we truly gain no understanding of a meaningful existence.

She also delves into the language of politics and the media and how, in turn, the language is used against and for us. But here lies the question. Is the language of politicians used against us or for us? Even more interesting is the question of whether we as citizens need it. Though we would be quick to say that that is ridiculous, some people would be less inclined to think that way. Today people like and subsequently need this spectacle that creates meaning for them. Since it seems as though meaning (and happiness) today can only be acquired through some type of struggle, people are in search of it. They want empathy with the media, with the government, and with other people like themselves. They simply need this linguistic reality that is placed in front of them because, let's face it, it's simple and dramatic. This is what people love.

Mr. Magruder Goes to Washington.

My girlfriend and I took advantage of the Colombus holiday to make a road trip. We drove down to Washington D.C. and spent the day there. We had a fantastic time, which is irrelavant, and I suggest that you all make the trip down if you can because D.C. looks completely different now that I'm not some bright-eyed eighth grader.

For this class, the relevant part of our trip conserned our destination. We spent the day on Independence Mall. We only had time to visit two museums because they close at 5:30 pm, but my girlfriend picked out two fantastic choices.

First stop was the National Holocaust Memorial. This is not a "date" museum. My girlfriend has wanted to see this site for years. I had already been to the museum on my last trip to Washington. We both were dramatically moved by the exhibits. In my opinion, if there ever was a war worth fighting it would have to have been World War II. However, the museum does a fantastic job of exhibiting how effectively persuasive the Nazi party was. Hitler makes modern "evil-doers" and any comparisons between them look paltry. The propaganda that he used and the manner in which he employed his tactics, and this is my opinion, is a model for our modern approach, especially how he kept so much of his operations under such lock and key that the general public was unaware of what he was perpetrating. Though I think Nazi ideals and tactics are too deplorable for words, I found myself in utter awe at their success rate. Hitler, unfortuately, is probably one of the most successful men in history. I suggest that you go see the exhibits. They are incredibly powerful in their subject matter, and then you leave the building, as if it were a movie theater, and realize that all of that happened, all of it is true.

Our second stop was at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Talk about propaganda! This building was teeming with it. Starting with the huge pro-America banners on the exterior, it felt like I was walking through a politically correct view of America. The upper floor was dominated by an exhibit celebrating Latin music queen, Celia Cruz. Then there were exhibits praising Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, and Ray Charles. The second floor felt basically like walking through the First Ladies' closet, as there was an exhibition of their actual gowns. Tucked away on the bottom floor was an exhibit that praised American scientific advancement, which none of its displays were in working order. And presiding over it all was a huge American flag. I was most offended by the "Disney-like" sugar coating that everything was presented with. Judging from these displays, Latinos and Blacks alike are only significant based upon their musical contributions, and women are only good for fashion; not to mention that science is a dead field not worth advancing. I think that ignoring the struggles that these people went through weakens their importance in American History. I would completely write off this museum if it were not for its one saving grace - an exhibit about Brown vs. Board of Education. This is the single exhibit that I felt accurately showed "American History" in a manner which makes me both sad and proud to be an American. As for everything else, it all seemed like fluff especially compared to the Brown vs. Board of Education exhibit.

I wish we could have seen more of the museums that surround Independence Mall. They are free to the public. We spent $30 on a tank of gas and $13 on a pair of Metro tickets so we could avoid parking fees and city traffic. Make time to go see your National Capital.

Lakoff

Lakoff brings up a lot of interesting ideas about frames. She states: "We need our frames and conventional assumptions. These form the glue that holds cultures together and allows individuals within those cultures to feel like competent members of a cohesive community." I've always thought that frames defeated the point of individuality, but in this sense I begin to see them in a positive light. I believe frames tend to give us a sense of community and belonging, and we migrate to people with similar frames. Without certain frames, I wonder if the world would be in chaos. Or would it ever be possible not to have frames? Frames are everywhere; from our political party to the sports team we endorse. Every promotion we see is focused on a certain frame.
I believe Lakoff's frame idea completely correlates with why Conservatives have kept control of the government. She states: "What makes conservative ideas go down smoothly, while new ones stick in the craw, is their blind familiarity." Conservative write in a certain frame that attracts a large mass of the population. They don't go outside of the frame like many liberals tend to do. They have a set frame (which tends to be a great deal of the voting population) and write towards that. People feel they can identify with their frames, and therefore they vote for them. It kind of goes back to what the clip we heard in class demonstrated, although the man agreed with more of the ideas for kerry, he still voted for bush because he saw himself in the Republican frame.

War?

Lakoff makes it very clear in the beginning that she is not forcing her opinion on anyone. After throwing around a few classifications of linguists, she explains (I think) that she does not have the power to make meaning for everyone. All of her observations are merely the meaning that she derives.

Lakoff mentions the use of language in the political sphere to create us and them atmosphere in America. Of course, that's not really a huge breakthrough in linguistics. What I found interesting is that she says there is a negative connotation to "liberal" but not "conservative."

Really? No negative connotation to conservative? So people don't think of old, rich, white men sailing around on yachts and cutting their own taxes? In all fairness, I don't know how old this book is, but conservatives definitely have a negative frame.

By the way, she focuses a great deal on frames just like the other Lakoff. In relation to frames, she talks about having to identify ideas of minority groups but not majority groups. Doesn't that just make things easier?

Think about it. If one black guy is standing in a group of white guys, he's easiest to identify as "the black guy." The same would work for a white guy in a group of black people. So yes, the ideas of minority groups will be identified as such.

So obviously, white males like myself are using language to keep everyone else down. Apparently, I've been oppressing people since before I was born. At least, I'm being asked to pay money, so fault must be mine.

Paper 1 response

I believe that the American culture is being affected by persuasion and advertisements. I think by the time i'm in my golden years that the world is going to run out of room for these types of methods they use such as billboards and what not. Sometimes I wonder if it's our own faults for falling into the crowd or maybe we just don't know any better because we grew up with it. It's strange when you take a step back and realize what our culture really is. Europeans state that we're a nation of fat, lazy, idiots. Maybe that can be true in a lot of ways...we do live the life of luxury compared to other cultures. But we are also very ignorant to the truth. Our government tries to "protect" us of the truth. Look at Area 51 for instance....we're not allowed to know what goes on there. What if there are aliens and they are planning to take over the planet...they would know about it but we wouldn't. How can that be fair to a free country? Our government hides things from us because they think it is in our best interest but we all live to learn. That is the point of living...seeing and experiencing new and exciting things...taking thrills. So why is it so bad that we know the truth about everything...it might even help to mold our society into something better for the future. Some things I guess are left better unsaid but I think it would help a lot to know.

Paper 1

Free is never really “free” is it? Even worse, imagine those individuals who do get ripped off and have to find out the hard way by getting taken by some advertisement scheme. There is no model of our culture’s democratic communication, because our culture’s communication is not based on democracy. The only hope we as consumers have while falling prey to money-hungry companies and corporations is that ethics will become a value to be possessed and maintained through persuasion.

Instead of adding any ethical principles advertisers and marketing agencies are now trying to master the skills of managing public opinion. Integrating products into programs, by using product placement with "seamless" transitions has been a key to successfully reaching a targeted broad audience. What better way to be introduced to a brand name line of clothing now being worn by your favorite actor and can be seen on a nationally famous primetime fall lineup television program? Consider that radio commercial for the automotive dealership describing another random great new sales event going on, the disclaimer isn’t emphasized and barely audible at the end of the advertisement.



really cool advertisement, check it out!
http://www.hypnoticsalesforce.com/

Angus

Wow. Yeah so 45 pages and the conclusion is...yay activist groups. I'm so sick of hearing the same message over and over. "The people aren't ruling and need to band together..." Well, not everyone can rule, and the group in power seems to be doing a pretty good job right now.

I'm not talking about social squabbles but the basics. When you turn on the faucet, water comes out. You can eat every day, and we're all going to college. Complete democracy would never work. Hell, confederal systems don't even work.

Some people have better things to do than sit in assembly halls and discuss politics like Angus wants us to do. People have jobs and want to enjoy their lives. Some people like discussing politics and law. They should be the ones in the big assembly halls. The rest of us just don't care. We'll tell you when something makes us mad. Until then, the government can just do what they want.

Little more Angus

Angus really very interesting, but maybe a little too idealistic. I personally believe the democracy needs some sort of change, and that in fact they culture in which we are living cannot be literally defined as a democracy. However, I believe that some of the reason that we lack some democratic aspects is because of the laziness in the US people (not excluding myself). If we set forth this meetings, where everything can be freely addressed, and everything will be freely answered, what percentage of US citizens would attend? People are so caught up in their lives that they are too busy to understand that what we are living in is not a strictly defined democracy, let alone do something to change it. I'm not saying that this is write, but a government ran strictly by the people is a little out of our range. I mean we can't even get a large portion of our citizens to come out and check a box once every four years, how are we going to get them to go beyond that?

Is it possible to Change?

As much as I want to sit here and write about how much our world needs to change, and how if everyone just got along, the world would be a better place ("All we are saying... Is give Peace a chance"), I honestly cannot bring myself to do it. No matter how hard we try, there is too much diversity in the minds of our leaders, workers, and even in the young minds of America. Noone will ever agree on everything, and that is why there can never be "perfect peace" as some like to call it. There can never be a perfect justice system, or a perfect government, or even a perfect country for that matter. It is truly ashame when you realize how the real world works, and how hard it is to get things the way you want them. Just a thought I had, so I decided to post it.

Angus

Although I've indeed voiced frustration about our so called democracy in the United States, this reading actually made me feel less so. I didn't take Angus to be berating how democracy 'has gone downhill' but instead saying that we simply need to change our practices because of our changing world.
Angus talks of how citizens of a democracy need to be able to debate, agree, and argue with one another in order to formulate views on important issues. He also talks of how citizens need access to relevent information on issues they deem important. This is where TV comes in because it does not allow for the listener to either debate or choose the topics. I think most people can agree that in our country (non-politician) citizens have become accustomed to receiving information on a daily basis. But how many times do we debate about issues a) with someone who does not agree or b) on issues not talked about on TV?
I think Angus, realizing this, is merely saying that it is our duty as citizens of a democracy to change in order to sustain a democracy. I have voiced the notion all too often that "I am frustrated because I have no voice, and I can't change anything." Not that changing a lifestyle is easy, but if it's possible to--over time--modify our nation to one that encourages political debates among citizens, that's something to hope for--right?

Politics/Democracy: A Way of Life?

Somewhat idealistic in his political centered arguments, Ian Angus has some worthy and, to say the least, questionable opinions. Though he does raise the question of apathy among Americans, he isn't sensitive to the reasons why Americans are the way they are. From a rhetorical approach, and looking back at the readings of Lippman, Angus may take on a different stance which is more or less probing at different American ideals and involvement. For example, he raises the point that, "We call other countries non-democratic when they don't have an institutionalized system of elections like ours, but do we ever look closely at why we call this democracy?" Here he is arguing that since we (apparently each of us shell out money for campaigns) run such competitive and demanding campaigns, we cannot, and are not a democracy, however, if this is how candidates feel they should run, then it is their money (for the large part) they are spending.

To elaborate on his idealized arguments I would like to try at least to form some counterpoints. When he is pointing out ways we "the people," need to get more involved in our government in order to make it a functioning democracy he omits some important ideas. First, he says that "widespread access to relevant information" must become available to the public. Though this would be great, I don't believe the public, by and large, would care. Second, he says, the public needs to be given the opportunity to "decide what is important politically at a given time." Again, we could simply argue that people wouldn't care because they aren't empowered. Though this may lead to empowerment, we are still, as Angus purports, "subjects" under the "public sphere." So, in a way he contradicts his beliefs in calling the apathetic American "subjects," especially when he says that, "Citizens have this double role--they both originate the law and are subject to it." I understand that he is calling for change, which is a good thing, but he doesn't account for the simple needs Americans must receive before fully immersing their lives in politics.

Angus Reading

After reading the assignment in Angus I became very tired of the whole polictical debate. I am now to the point of being frustrated, as a few in class already indicated they were during discussion. I mostly agree with what Angus has to say but I believe he is overlooking a few concepts. He cristicizes television and the internet as being tools that are against Democracy and are blamed for Democracy's blurred image of today. Even though I dont use either tool much (Tv or computer) I dont believe everytime one engages in doing so that they are thinking politics. To me, a tv or computer has nothing to do with politics, and I could care less about politics when I want to do homework, check the weather, or watch a show.

In todays world as technology advances people will be using these sources more and more to communicate or get work done. I dont think we should change for democracy, I think Democracy must change for us.