Saturday, November 29, 2008
Harley-Davidson
In searching for an artifact for the next paper, I came across a couple of ads from Harley-Davidson that I thought you might be interested in. There were more than this, but I thought these two were the most disturbing. I got them by searching Google Images for Harley-Davidson ads.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Some Artifacts
Helen sent me this link that allows you to dress like Sarah Palin!
Carly sent me this NPR story about Robert Draper's New York Times Magazine piece, "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain." Draper examines the narrative surrounding the McCain campaign.
And finally, Meagan sent this site which fact-checks the Obama campaign and calls "record" or "rhetoric," a very limited way of setting up the definition of rhetoric.
If you have other artifacts that you think are interesting, send them my way. I'll post them here and/or talk about them in class as we have time.
Enjoy all the election day coverage.
Helen sent me this link that allows you to dress like Sarah Palin!
Carly sent me this NPR story about Robert Draper's New York Times Magazine piece, "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain." Draper examines the narrative surrounding the McCain campaign.
And finally, Meagan sent this site which fact-checks the Obama campaign and calls "record" or "rhetoric," a very limited way of setting up the definition of rhetoric.
If you have other artifacts that you think are interesting, send them my way. I'll post them here and/or talk about them in class as we have time.
Enjoy all the election day coverage.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Tonight's VP Debate
Does anyone else think tonight's VP debate might be an extremely interesting watch, rhetorically?
Even if we only approach it in light of this week's reading in Hart about style, there will be a lot to think about. We know that Biden and Palin are drastically different in everything from background, to experience, to rhetorical styles. That goes without saying, but like the comparison of Webster and Gallagher, is still worth considering.
Biden probably illustrates a "Periodic" style, as laid out by Hart on page 135. He is often quoted as being "long-winded" (source, New York Times) and unlikable. Others lump both together as "two straight talkers" and as "authentic people" (source, The Mercury News). His challenge is to use a style that, first of all, does not come off as elitist or chauvinist or know-it-all, and secondly, makes him a little more likeable to Joe (or Jill) Public. He must "strike a tone neither too condescending nor too deferential" (The Mercury News). And as Hart explains on page 127, "Americans hate language that calls attention to itself." Biden is much more likely to make a blunder of this kind than Palin. He should focus on channeling more of the "Running" style laid out by Hart on page 134.
Palin, on the other hand, has no problem being likable and relating to the common American. Her former opponent in the Alaska Governor's race in 2006 stated that her "biggest strength was her ability to 'fill the room with her presence'" (source, BBC News). And a New York Times analysis states "she knows the price of diapers and gasoline. Watch for her to emphasize that she understands the needs of people like you." Her challenge, then, is to use a style that makes her seem more presidential: more prepared to handle higher-level issues than diapers and gasoline. As was seen in her Convention speech, Palin illustrates more of the "Running" style, but might do well to answer in more "Periodic" tones, especially replacing "spontaneous responses (with) delayed, but more emotionally complex, responses" (Hart, 135). This style might quell naysayers who have reacted negatively to her gaffes in recent interviews.
Both candidates can accomplish much of their goals in the debate simply by utilizing the correct styles. And of course, as Mark Petracca is quoted in The Mercury News, "(escaping) humiliation or a rhetorical blunder,'' which both have made plenty of since the conventions (see "Biden-Palin: gaffe potential?", BBC News). However, Hart also quotes Klaus on page 128 as saying "style...'does not originate within the man; it exists apart from him, as an inheritance, a legacy, that shapes his conceptual ends as surely as he does.'" This, to me, says that Biden and Palin can only do so much to adapt their rhetorical style in order to meet the goals of being more likeable or more presidential without ringing false. Style may not be as changeable as we'd like.
Even if we only approach it in light of this week's reading in Hart about style, there will be a lot to think about. We know that Biden and Palin are drastically different in everything from background, to experience, to rhetorical styles. That goes without saying, but like the comparison of Webster and Gallagher, is still worth considering.
Biden probably illustrates a "Periodic" style, as laid out by Hart on page 135. He is often quoted as being "long-winded" (source, New York Times) and unlikable. Others lump both together as "two straight talkers" and as "authentic people" (source, The Mercury News). His challenge is to use a style that, first of all, does not come off as elitist or chauvinist or know-it-all, and secondly, makes him a little more likeable to Joe (or Jill) Public. He must "strike a tone neither too condescending nor too deferential" (The Mercury News). And as Hart explains on page 127, "Americans hate language that calls attention to itself." Biden is much more likely to make a blunder of this kind than Palin. He should focus on channeling more of the "Running" style laid out by Hart on page 134.
Palin, on the other hand, has no problem being likable and relating to the common American. Her former opponent in the Alaska Governor's race in 2006 stated that her "biggest strength was her ability to 'fill the room with her presence'" (source, BBC News). And a New York Times analysis states "she knows the price of diapers and gasoline. Watch for her to emphasize that she understands the needs of people like you." Her challenge, then, is to use a style that makes her seem more presidential: more prepared to handle higher-level issues than diapers and gasoline. As was seen in her Convention speech, Palin illustrates more of the "Running" style, but might do well to answer in more "Periodic" tones, especially replacing "spontaneous responses (with) delayed, but more emotionally complex, responses" (Hart, 135). This style might quell naysayers who have reacted negatively to her gaffes in recent interviews.
Both candidates can accomplish much of their goals in the debate simply by utilizing the correct styles. And of course, as Mark Petracca is quoted in The Mercury News, "(escaping) humiliation or a rhetorical blunder,'' which both have made plenty of since the conventions (see "Biden-Palin: gaffe potential?", BBC News). However, Hart also quotes Klaus on page 128 as saying "style...'does not originate within the man; it exists apart from him, as an inheritance, a legacy, that shapes his conceptual ends as surely as he does.'" This, to me, says that Biden and Palin can only do so much to adapt their rhetorical style in order to meet the goals of being more likeable or more presidential without ringing false. Style may not be as changeable as we'd like.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Another Article
Another article, this time evaluating the rhetorical abilities of Barack Obama....apparently a much better orator than a debator. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/us/politics/23obama.html?th&emc=th
Monday, September 22, 2008
Bill O Again
I thought some of you may be interested in a pretty amusing article I just stumbled across about Bill O'Reilly and his use of rhetoric. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Truth
In writing my reading response I have run into a question that maybe others can help me with. Plato mentions (according to Herrick anyway) that true (good) rhetoricians must be philosophers like himself. They must not be seeking to persuade others to their own points of view, but rather guiding others to Truth.
Does Plato/Herrick mention anywhere how Truth is to be verified? Other than that it is arrived at via much study and contemplation. Who gets to decide what Truth is?
Hitler and St. Augustine respectively did massive amounts of research in the quest for Truth. Who's version would Plato find legitimate? Who gets to be the leader of the masses, whose love of honor and appetite outweigh their love of wisdom, and therefore should voluntarily submit to the lovers of wisdom?
I think there is no answer, but perhaps I missed something in the massive amounts of reading (wink) that indicated how Plato felt about this.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The "Mock-Macho" Situation Comedy
Reading this article I found a quote that could be likened to Socrates response to Pharedus in the Lover and Non-Lover.
On page 83, (e.g., "A man's got to know his limitations"), proverbs (e.g., "A great lover is not one who romances a different woman every night but one who romances the same woman for a lifetime")...
This is what Socrates is referring to with the last part of his response about how the lover not the non-lover should be chosen.
Now, in all of this it seems that the whole concept of morals and ideas of what is good versus bad, comes into play. The rhetoric seems more educational or teaching/counselling than dialectic. Am I close to this comparison? Its all interesting how the machoisms are so unclear to those that hang their masculinity out for everyone to see. Is it truely masculinity, because it sure comes off stupid for the guys. Poor guys, they keep taking a hit and the mocking is truely funny, however, are we not doing the same to them that we - women - have had to deal with for centuries? On Home Improvement, Wilson keeps Tim in line for Jill, and for Tim's troublesome identity, Al is there to keep him in check. However, Al has that soft side and it is portrayed as "weak" through Tim's eyes. How then can we - women - identify with these identities. We know the weaknesses and strengths of both sexes, and the relationships between, so I say have a beer and laugh a little. The Rhetoric between the characters keeps it truly entertaining and somewhat of a lesson in Machoism.
On page 83, (e.g., "A man's got to know his limitations"), proverbs (e.g., "A great lover is not one who romances a different woman every night but one who romances the same woman for a lifetime")...
This is what Socrates is referring to with the last part of his response about how the lover not the non-lover should be chosen.
Now, in all of this it seems that the whole concept of morals and ideas of what is good versus bad, comes into play. The rhetoric seems more educational or teaching/counselling than dialectic. Am I close to this comparison? Its all interesting how the machoisms are so unclear to those that hang their masculinity out for everyone to see. Is it truely masculinity, because it sure comes off stupid for the guys. Poor guys, they keep taking a hit and the mocking is truely funny, however, are we not doing the same to them that we - women - have had to deal with for centuries? On Home Improvement, Wilson keeps Tim in line for Jill, and for Tim's troublesome identity, Al is there to keep him in check. However, Al has that soft side and it is portrayed as "weak" through Tim's eyes. How then can we - women - identify with these identities. We know the weaknesses and strengths of both sexes, and the relationships between, so I say have a beer and laugh a little. The Rhetoric between the characters keeps it truly entertaining and somewhat of a lesson in Machoism.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Was Plato playing fair?
“The debate that transpires in Gorgias, one of Plato’s early dialogues, written around 387 B.C., mixes elements drawn from actual debates with imagined dialogue representing the views of Socrates, Plato, and the famous Sophist Gorgias.” (Herrick, 58)
Plato’s dialogue, Gorgias, left me asking many questions. Does anyone know which elements in particular were drawn from actual debates verses Plato’s imagined dialogue? During this time period was it common to not only challenge someone’s ideas AND write his (because really during this time period almost all were male and not female scholars) supposed responses? Were the “mistakes” made by the sophists from an actual debate’s mistakes or did Plato imagine them as ways Socrates (but really Plato) could take on three sophists at once? The whole thing seemed strange to me even for a dialogue written in 387 BC…
Plato’s dialogue, Gorgias, left me asking many questions. Does anyone know which elements in particular were drawn from actual debates verses Plato’s imagined dialogue? During this time period was it common to not only challenge someone’s ideas AND write his (because really during this time period almost all were male and not female scholars) supposed responses? Were the “mistakes” made by the sophists from an actual debate’s mistakes or did Plato imagine them as ways Socrates (but really Plato) could take on three sophists at once? The whole thing seemed strange to me even for a dialogue written in 387 BC…
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Rhetoric in Science
I've been thinking a lot lately about rhetoric in science. Science is supposed to be completely void of opinion, emotion, etc. This "fact" is driven into scientists during training - we are told countless times that the data is the data is the data.
I've noticed more and more lately that when science is mixed with business (and let's face it - when isn't it? We need funding somehow!) the data becomes less important. I'm not saying that data is not important, it's still is a large part of decision making. My point is that it's not the only part. I've attended pre-meetings where scientists and I have met to go over the "game-plan" with how best to present our data in order to persuade a larger group of decision-makers to make a particular decision. Sometimes the larger group makes the decision we want, sometimes they don't. The good thing about scientists is that they always challenge what you present to them so you do get a good discussion about the different points of an argument.
I think there is rhetoric in science, but scientists don't want to admit to it (not generally).
I've noticed more and more lately that when science is mixed with business (and let's face it - when isn't it? We need funding somehow!) the data becomes less important. I'm not saying that data is not important, it's still is a large part of decision making. My point is that it's not the only part. I've attended pre-meetings where scientists and I have met to go over the "game-plan" with how best to present our data in order to persuade a larger group of decision-makers to make a particular decision. Sometimes the larger group makes the decision we want, sometimes they don't. The good thing about scientists is that they always challenge what you present to them so you do get a good discussion about the different points of an argument.
I think there is rhetoric in science, but scientists don't want to admit to it (not generally).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)