Picking apart politics!

Health Care

Barack Obama: Obama proposes that a health plan will be available to all Americans, and that it will be affordable. He guarantees that no American will be turned away because of illness or preexisiting conditions. Obama wants paperwork to be simplified for health care, and wants there to be portability of insurance plans if individuals change jobs. He also believes that children should have mandatory health care coverage, and that coverage under parents plans should be extended till the age of 25. Supporting disease management programs is an important issue to Obama, to help care with chronic illnesses. Patient safety, comparative effectiveness research, and insurance reform are also issues Obama believes need to be monitored/dealt with. Obama wants to lower costs through investments in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems.

Hillary Clinton: Hillary Clinton also wants to make health care more affordable, and wants to improve quality at the same time. She does not believe that there should be any discrimination if people have pre-existing conditions. Clinton believes that tax credits will help make sure that working families dont have to pay a high percentages of their income. She wants health care to be reliable, so that it will exist even if someone changes their job or loses it. Hillary says that she would give tax credits to small businesses.


John McCain: McCain beleives that we need to bring health care costs under control through saving Medicare/Medicaid, providing health benefits to retirees, and by letting companies compete. He thinks that health care money should be put at the hands of individuals so that they can have more control. Access to health care is important to McCain. He wants people that are in all different areas, temorarily or chronically uninsured, and in inner cities to have access. McCain says that patients should have more decisions and responsibility. McCain also wants to reform the tax code to provide people with a tax credit.

Overall i would say that Barack Obama has the strongest solution oriented proposal. His website gave a lot of detail about what he has done in the past, and all of the problems that he wants to deal with. He went into specifics about legislation he sponsored, and act that he has co-sponsored to improve health. His website described many health problems like lead-poisoning, mercury pollution, autism, AIDS, and other issues, and didn't only explain what the problems were, but gave solutions, like strengthening fundings, and reducing amount of mercury deposits. Obama says that "My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”
Even though this sounds like a big promise, his solutions of dealing with health issues seem attainable.

The biggest fallacies I found in researching all the canidates' responses to health care is that they use words like "will" and "we can" quite often. These may be too strong of words to use. Saying "we will try our hardest" does sound weaker, but it may be more realistic. Then, they couldn't be punished if something doesn't happen for saying they WILL. Some of the issues were overgeneralized and not explained thoroughly. Some of their promises seem too hopeful and not realistic enough.

1. To John McCain: What do you think some consequences would be if Americans are given the control and responsibilty that you mention in health care?
2. To Barack Obama: You make a lot of promises about universal healthcare being affordable, but how much money are Americans going to end up paying in taxes with the Obama plan?

An organization that would be beneficial for taking part in solution-oriented problems on a local level would be the GMU College Republicans or Democrats. Both groups have many activities for people to be involved. The GMU Republican group is hosting Support the Troops week, and also Gun Rights Week. They have hosted Grover Norquist for Conservative Pride Week and Akindele Akinyemi for Black History Month. The GMU Democrat group has had speakers come to GMU, like Andrew Hurst in 2006. Also, on February 5th, 2007 they hosted a rally for Obama where senator Obama appeared. Information about the groups can be found on their websites. College Republicans & College Democrats. To be more involved upon joining the groups individuals could send letters to the presidential canidates about issues that concern them. Also, they could host more informative events to spread awareness about issues--ie global warming, war in Iraq, health care, education, etc.

To be more specific about health care, the Student Nurse's Association at GMU offers volunteer programs and learning experiences to be involved in health care for the community. An individual may be taken more seriously if they're trying to take a stand on health care if they are part of a group like this. They could speak about the issue, send petitions/letters to health officials.


Becky discussed the uses of energy in her blog. She thought that Hillary came up with ideas that could be very beneficial. For example, Hillary proposed a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund that would give money to investing in alternative energy sources. This Fund would be paid in part by oil companies. Becky thought that John McCain's solutions were vague, and that he didn't give very specific examples of how he was going to address issues. The group that Becky proposed to help get involved is Habitat for Humanity. She said the groups helps the environment because volunteers are used to help build homes for the homeless and poor, instead of having industrial companies buy/use the land for more detrimental things, like factories.

Noor wrote about the Iraq war, and Obama's propositions to help end it. She mentions how he wants to start sending troops back home, but at the same time realizes that he needs to do it gradually. Noor also mentions that Obama was to make sure there is still protection against major threats in Iraq.

Pirates: No Trespassing!

Hi, and welcome to my show! I'm Michelle Bollinger, and today we will be discussing the controversial issue of pirating. It's so easy to get online and download music, videos, and photographs rather then go to the store to spend money on them. Is this convenience worth it though? Recent consequences are causing anger amongst many individuals. Lawsuits are being filed against people for being involved in file-sharing, and people even risk going to jail for illegal downloads. We have invited Jason Schultz, who is arguing for the legalization of file sharing, and Scott Matthews, who will be giving us the opposing view against file-sharing. Lets get started with Jason Schultz. Jason, could you sell me on why file-sharing is such a benefit?

Jason Schultz: Michelle, the number of people having lawsuits brought on them is something that could be prevented. The right to privacy and constitutional right to free speech are being shattered with individuals being exposed for actions like this. There are so many other solutions, like voluntary compulsary liscensing, that could be used to allow artists to still get compensation for their work. College students and adults dont have the money to pay off thousands of dollars of fines. I just dont think it's fair to have such harsh punishments when alternatives could be used instead.

Michelle Bollinger: I see your point Jason. It's intruiged me at how many people are being brought to court over pirating. I never knew the consequences could have such an impact on people's lives! What do you think about this Scott?

Scott Matthews: Although it'd valid to mention how harsh the consequences are, I think Jason is failing to see how serious infringing on copyrighting is. It's against the law to pirate. Since so many people are engaging in file-sharing, it makes it all the more difficult to put an end to. You brought up voluntary compulsary licensing. In order to do that, we need to get the government involved. The government would be able to see everything we listen to and look at. Where's the privacy in that? Plus, many alternatives that have been presented, like monthly fees on music downloaders have not worked to decrease piracy. For all the arguments about privacy and free speech, i dont think that the government getting involved backs up any of those stances.

Michelle Bollinger: You do bring up a great point Scott, about privacy being infringed if file-sharing is allowed. Jason, do you think there is way to keep privacy in file-sharing without letting the government have so much control in it?

Jason Schultz: Yes i do. I dont agree that the government will be as concerned with knowing everything we do and look at as Scott mentioned. The government would be more concerned with making sure that artists recieve the money that they deserve.

Scott Matthews: If people end up paying monthly fees and taxes for artists to recieve their money, i dont think they will realize that this wont be the only thing they're paying for. Much of the file-sharing, in fact around 40 percent of it comes from porn. It would be virtually impossible for the government to make sure every file-share that was being paid for was music, photographs, or video that was acceptable.

Jason Schultz: I agree, it is impossible to make sure that only certain aspects of file-sharing would be allowed. However, I believe that people are always going to have the urge to copy music and videos, so why not come up with a way that still gives credit to the makers of their work that can be legal at the same time?

Michelle Bollinger: Thank you so much Jason Schultz, and Scott Matthews for coming in today. I wish we could talk longer but our time is up! I'm glad i was able to hear both sides of the piracy debate. You both have some really great comments for and against it, and i'm not sure what to root for! Until next time...

Concealed Weapons on Campus

I'm really torn between the two arguments about students carrying concealed weapons on campus. I know that if students have the proper safety training and licensing, then they should be deemed responsible to carry around a concealed weapon. However, the idea that hundreds or even thousands of students would have concealed weapons on campus makes me uneasy. I know most students are rational, and would be extremely careful with their weapon, but it's human nature to be irrational. Some would would feel better protected if more people carried guns around campus, but I'm not sure if I'd feel much safer. I think security on campus should be increased, and that every building on campus should have someone armed in case of an emergency. Maybe videos could be installed in classrooms so that security could keep tabs on the safety of students. Since individuals can be so rash, i would mind if students in my class were carrying guns, although i guess i wouldn't technically know. I would probably be more worried about chaos breaking loose in class and someone shooting off their gun than i would be about focusing on a class lecture. My family doesn't have guns in the house, unless you count our paintball and BB guns. I've always felt protected in my house without a gun, so i don't know why we would ever need one. I feel secure in my neighborhood, but i do recognize that violence can happen anytime. If my family grew up in a higher crime rate area, enjoyed hunting, or if my parents were cops, i may have a different perspective about guns.
If guns were allowed on the George Mason campus, then those he had them should have to go through rigorous safety training twice a year, have health screenings to ensure their mental stability and also a registered/licensed gun owner.
I believe that the strongest argument in favor of concealed weapons on campus is from a video on the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus website (http://www.concealedcampus.org/). In an interview from The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, a student that was shot during the Virginia Tech shootings spoke about the tragedy. Also, a man discussed how if guns are allowed on campus, events like this could be better prevented. I found this to be a strong argument because most people would not want a school shooting to occur, and would want to find a way to decrease the victims of a shooting.
A weak example that i found for carrying concealed weapons is from the CNN video. A man stated that because he is a wheelchair, he is an easy target. Also, he mentioned that he locks up his gun and is not some "trigger happy redneck". I do not agree with the fact that if someone is in a wheelchair then they are an easier target. If someone wants to go on a shooting rampage on a college campus, they are probably more concerned with finding people that have harmed them emotionally, or that they want to get revenge on. Shooters are also random though, and at the same time so concerned with making headlines so they shoot as much people as they can. You don't have to be a "trigger happy redneck" to become furiated and want to shoot someone. People that seem normal may have completely disturbed thoughts and plans.
The strongest argument in favor or prohibiting concealed carry weapons on campus is that it could increase violence. Guns could be accidentally shot, people could be distressed or angry and result to using their guns instead of solving a problem in a much less violent way (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0418/p02s02-ussc.html ) A weak argument is that "Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons." (http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm). So many people already carry guns in crowded areas like movie theaters and office buildings, which hasn't caused many problems yet. I do not think that teachers carrying concealed weapons would be any different from students. Most students in college are able to logical as reasonably as teachers can. There are some pretty wacky professors, and wacky kids. The positive aspect of a teacher carrying would be that one person would have control of the situation and that all the students wouldn't have to take out their guns. But what happens when the shooter kills the teacher first? The Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms, which has been interpreted many different ways. Some argue that it's individual, which is the right to bear personal weapons, and some say it's state, which means it's strictly for the militia. My reference is from a law website for legal professionals (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/). I do not believe that the Second Amendment is a sufficient enough reason to allow students to carry concealed weapons. I think extensive training for carrying a gun need to be considered, and also in-depth background checks should be necessary.

We Shall Overcome

1. Title: "Jimmy Crow"
Genre: Rap
Explanation: This song would explore racism against blacks, hispanics, asians, caucasians, etc. that would influence listeners to see the commonalities between them, and understand how much knowledge individuals of different cultures can gain from eachother. The lyrics would be harsh and profane at parts, using clips of people being called deragatory terms such as "spic", "cracker", etc. to allow listeners to see how hurtful the terms really are.

2. Title: "Practice what you preach"
Genre: Punk
Explanation: This song would confront religious intolerance that exists in America, despite the common goal of America to embrace differences. It will also explore how most religions teach compassion to others regardless of their background, and many individuals remain one-sided and don't practice what they preach. Snipits of parts of laws about tolerance would also be included in the song.

3.Title: "Drinking to Death"
Genre: Hip-hop
Explanation: The health problems associated with binge drinking, specifically among teens and young adults would be examined in this song. The song would be set up as a story, about a relationship between a boy and a girl where one was slowly drifting away from the other because they favored drinking over their relationship. The climax of the song would be when the individual died from binge drinking, and the song would explain the details of the funeral and that the death could have been been better prevented.

4.Title: "Gasses from their asses"
Genre: Experimental
Explanation: Alternative forms of energy are more common than they seem, and can be found in your local park or backyard. This humorous song would discuss how animal feces can be turned into gas for cars. It would also explain how this resource is not unlimited, and would be extremely benefictial. Animals sounds would be incorportated subtly for laughs.

5.Title: "We're sorry"
Genre: Country
Explanation: The devastating issue of child abuse would be shown in this song through lyrics between a father and his little girl. There would be two parts to the song, first the young girl's who would explain how no matter what she does, it's not right to her father. The father would explain his frustration with work, his wife, life in general, and express how he lets out his anger on his daughter. The end of the song would be through the mother of the family, who ends up loosing her husband and daughter. Abuse killed the daughter, and the father's guilt caused him to commit suicide. This song would advocate awareness of abuse, and dealing with it as soon as possible. "We're sorry" speaks for all the children abused who dont have a voice

6.Title: "Annihilate"
Genre: Hardcore
Explanation: Suicide remains to be a common cause for death. This song would follow the emotions of a teenager who wanted to end their life because it seemed easier than trying to work through it. The song would start off with an angry tone, but progress to a calmer and more reasoned one, where the individual realizes they will be gone forever if they commit suicide. Not only will they destroy their life, but will also destroy the hearts of their loved ones.

7.Title: "Thinspiring"
Genre: Pop
Explanation: The seriousness of eating disorders would be examined in this song. Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa consume many teenagers lifestyles, and a common reason for their low self-esteem is the media. The struggle between a teenage girl and her boyfriend would explain the opposing views. The boyfriend would constantly tell the girl how beautiful she was, but the girl would never see herself as good enough. The girl would refer to popular icons in the media that she wants to be like.

8.Title: "Intervene the Genocide"
Genre: Alternative Rock
Explanation: This song would focus specifically on the genocide in Darfur, and the need for action to discontinue it, and prevent future genocides. It would mention past genocides, like Rwanda and The Holocaust. Politics and ethics would be discussed, and questions of why certain discriminations happen would occur throughout the song.

Lyrics to "We're Sorry" (# 5)
Daughter:
Do you hate me daddy?
'cause i still love you
I never meant to be bad.
It's all my fault daddy.
It's hard to pretend not to be sad
I'll try not to interrupt you to show you my artwork,
and i'll remember not to say anything when mommy thinks you're being a jerk.
Your kicks and punches hurt so much.
I wish i didn't have to lie about why i have a crutch.

Dad:
I thought life would get easier, but it's all a pain
You, my child, make me insane
Mom never stops worrying about the bills
My boss overloads me with work i cant find time to do
You push me to the end after such a long day
I wish you'd leave me alone
You still love me even when i hurt you
That's why the abuse is so easy to overdo

The video for this song would show the perspective of the child at school, then at home when her father's pressures are let out on her. It would also show the father's perspective, and follow him from the morning to late at night, when he's stressed out the most. Bruises and marks on the girl would progress through the video, and the final scenes would be the most violent abuse on the daughter, where she is killed, then the father would kill himself. The final scene would be a funeral from the perspective of the grieving mother.

Album Title: "We Shall Overcome"

CD cover: My CD cover would have a black background with a single mountain and white text going up the mountain saying "We shall overcome" in Times New Roman, in a gradually increasing font size(text on the bottom of the mountain will be small, but get larger as it reaches the top) . The text will look disoriented and scattered on the mountain, but will eventually lead to the top, which will show the ability to overcome a problem.

Religion becoming pop-culture

I think that this idea of religion becoming pop-culture should be compared to religion in politics. I do not think that politics and religion should be so closely intertwined, and think that some people have taken their religious beliefs to a point where they are not "practicing what they preach", but instead competing against other people with hostility and are lacking compassion, a virtue that most religions teach.
Pop-culture and religion are also becoming too closely related. Apperal with "Mary is my homegirl" and "Jesus is my homeboy" seems degrading to the relationship one is suppose to have with whichever higher power they believe in, but in this case it is God in the Christian faith. Most religions teach a close-knit and personal relationship with their diety, but referring to them as "Homeboy" is taking it too far.
The visual rhetoric of this shirt makes Jesus or Mary reachable and personable to people in a humorous way. Calling them "homeboy" is saying that they are a cool, hip friend of yours. I dont see much middle ground in this argmuent, like Paul Mitchell. It could be argued that they're just t-shirts and images and it shouldn't be taken that seriously. However, I grew up with a religious background, and see that religion is a serious commitment. How can such a spirtual relationship and deep commitment be simplified down to a statement as simple as "Jesus is my homeboy"? I think it would be more influential and a little less commercial to have an image of Jesus on the cross, bloody and tortured. This would should the seriousness of believing in a religion. I've seen this appeal to the masses method used a lot lately. I once visited a church that hooked prospective church-goers with entertaining games, like "Who can finish this can of Spam the quickest". Seriously, what does this teach about religion?
Mitchell said "What disturbs me is that the Christian love them too (referring to the t-shirts). This is alientating Christians and calling them gullible. Some Christians and forms of Christianity could be trying to appeal to teengers and young kids to make them see that you can have a real relationship with Jesus, like you do with your friends. It could be argued that this is the hook to lead people onto a deeper relationship, where God is put first in ones life.
If this shirt only contained the text the impact would be less controversial. The image makes the argument more of a parody. If the letters were Gothic styled instead of bubbled, the t-shirt may be viewed as more serious and less commerical. Although, i still dont think the text can effect the content to anything truly serious.
The image's role makes Jesus and Mary seem like just another ordinary person. I do see the image as a parody. All the images are all too over-used, like the halo above his head. The positioning of his hands look holy, like he's trying to offer something wonderful to someone, and in this case it's him, which seems selfish when he is suppose to be selfless.
I wish this didn't sound so stereotypical, but a black t-shirt would makes me think of a punk-rocker wearing this shirt because he/she thinks it's funny. Black would connotate sin, and white forgiveness in the religious sense, but i dont think the shirts would stand for that. It would seem more ironic saying that religion is black and white, when it's really not. A yellow shirts may be more bubbly and i can picture more Christians wearing it to be cutesy.

One Track Mind?

My intial reaction to Kelly's disqualification was shock. Our country is extremely diverse, with people of many differnt religious and ethnic backgrounds. From an ethical standpoint, diversity is suppose to be embraced. If anyone has a religion that's not the 'norm' of the country, they should not be shunned or disqualified from a race. Rules are broken all the time, and there should be leeway, or a reconsideration of rules for someone who 'broke' a uniform dresscode.
I think that this disqualification constitutes religious discrimination, but that it wasn't completely dilberate. The referees/judges should be more sensitive and pay more attention to the details of their decision. Since other individuals were disqualified for not following uniform code, this shows that no one was deliberately trying to point fingers at Kelly. However, Kelly should have the right to wear her head covering if it's against her own religious beliefs not to. Since there are standards, i feel like those disqualifying her may not be trying to shun her, but are just following the rules. Following the rules isn't always just, and definitely doesn't allow of change. Isn't that why we as citizen of the United States have the right to propose changes for laws/rules if they're not fair?
If i were to write an argumentative essay on this decision, i would need more information about what the other members were disqualified for exactly, and their backgrounds. Was it really just a matter of not being in uniform color or was there more to the decision? I would also like to know how well the rules were set and if they were read and given to the members of the track team so that they understand what's allowed and what will cause them to be disqualified. Also, can the rules be altered or changed if someone protested them?
Rogers stance was not very well defended when looking at what Kellys mom said about his statement "Every sport has uniform rules. It has nothing to do with religious discrimination. They were provided with several options that would have allowed her to run without taking off her head covering" (qtd. in Goldenbach). Kelly's mom mentioned that these options were not even discussed till after the race. To me, Rogers use of the word "nothing" makes it seems like he's worried about defending himself and that there could have been religious descrimination. However, maybe she did just need to wear a white shirt over her outfit, and that would have been a simple solution. This disqualification could have been thrown out of proportion, who knows.
I think that a potential solution regarding implementing track rules would be to allows religious garmets to be worn if desired. Unfortunately, I can see this rule being thrown around humorously with people arguing "it's against my religion to do so and so". Maybe a strict set of standards should be set, or an committee set up to decide what's fair and what's not.
If the single solid color rule was implemented, my response to Kelly's disqualification may change. She could have easily changed the color of her head garmet, as long as it wasn't against her religion, therefore the rule would be more tolerant, but still keep the athletic appearance that the team wants.

Global Warming

Key and Fork
1. "Vegans: Pay no attention" I would try to use something catchy and humorous to get peoples attention. Most people have no clue that food causes global warming.
2. The audience for this ad is vast because everyone eats, so anyone can relate to it. I would target teens and adults in school, because they would be more likely to take the idea into consideration.
3. A good tone for this ad would be one with humor or irony to draw people in, and then conversational with logos and pathos to back up back up the argument and appeal to people emotionally. I could explain how ironic it is that people are concerned with the cars they're purchasing, but they're neglecting to see other isues at hand that they also deal with about three times a day. Many people may not want to read in depth about the science of this issue, but instead get the basic facts about it so that change can be made. Once people realize that what they eat contributes to global warming, they may think twice about their food selections.
4. For the introduction i would use statistics on how much meat/dairy products people eat, how it affects global warming, and compare that to the statistics of transportation effecting global warming.
5. As for location, i would send this to schools and restraunts, and maybe post flyers on information boards.

Greenhouse Effect
1. For a title, i would use something matter-of-fact like "The Greenhouse Effect"
2. The audience that would most likely benefit from this ad would be students and adults interested in global warming.
3. The tone i would use for this would be a scholarly and logos-driven argument, with a lot of research about the Greenhouse Effect. Since the ad is not humorous at all, people attracted to it would probably be concerned with raw data.
4. I would probably write an introduction that states main and important facts about the Greenhouse Effect. Logos would be important for this.
5. I would put information about this in high school books for science classes. If kids were taking a science class, they would probably be tested on information like this, so it would be benefitial to have evidence about it, and a visual example.

Shark Lunch
1. "We're disappointing the sharks"
2. I would try to appeal to adults and teenagers, because they would understand the comedy of it and probably be interested in it.
3. The tone i would use for this would be satirical and humorous. I would discuss how the ad causes viewers to laugh because the sharks have no hope in getting 'food'. I would also talk about the serious nature of it, and how levels of water are affecting animals, not only sharks.
4. For an intro, i would most likely use statistics about the levels of water that's rising because of Global Warming, and how it's affecting animals.
5. I would put this in the washington post comics, because it has such a large spectrum of viewers.

Daddy dearest

Papa-bear,
As your daughter, i hope that you will consider a proposal that i would like to make regarding the purchase of a new Toyota Prius. I understand that this idea may seem far-fetched, but i would like to explain to you the benefits that it will be able to bring me, you, and even the environment! The Toyota Prius is a hybrid electric car, so it saves energy and is conventional. The Prius is economical when it comes to gas, and i know how you and mom worry about recent gas price increases. Driving the car would not only be a benefit to the car company of course, but it will benefit the environment because it has reduced noise emissions, and can reduce air pollution because it does not use as much fuel as some other automobiles. The Hybrid Prius is also equipped with saftey features such as: traction control, 3 year complimentary road side assistance, Anti-lock break system, driver and passanger air bags and front and rear crumple zones and side-impact door beams. If this list doesn't go into enough depth about the saftey issues, i'd like to offer you a website that provides more information on it. Website--http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/. This car would be benficial to me because the car i have right now has so many miles on it, and will probably not last for much longer. My 45 minute commute 3 times a week to George Mason definitely ads up to the miles. Also, the car i have now isn't as economical as this car, and i think the Prius would save me more money in the long run. My driving record is clean and i have never been in any accident or received any tickets. The car can be benefitial to you because you will not have to worry about it breaking down while i'm at school, and wont be stressed to have to come pick me up when you're busy. I think that i can handle this responsibility, and am willing to help pay for the car, and for insurance on it also. I hope you will consider my proposal.
Love always,
Your little Sniddlebop :)

To my dear daughter,
I'm pleased that you have proposed this question in such a professional mannor including saftey issues and how the car will be a benefit to you. However, I do not think that your timing on this issue is ideal. Your mother and I are more concerned with helping pay for your college, then we are about purchasing a new car, that is not absolutely necessary right now. I understand that your car has a lot of miles on it, but the engine is just fine and we just recently got it repaired so it's in pretty good shape. However, maybe when your car is in worse shape, i will consider helping you out in buying a new car. I know that you are a responsible young woman, and i'm glad that you're concerned with the environment and with long-term benefits, but unfortunately i'm going to have to decline your proposal.
Love,
Dad

Daddy,
Thank you for considering my proposal. I understand that you are concerned with paying for college right now, and that setting priorities is very important. I also know how stressful financial issues can be, because i'm trying to manage saving up enough money to pay for half of tuition. However, I think that you should consider how important this car would be in the long run. I could sell the car i have now, and use that money to put towards this new car. I do not know how long i will be able to rely on the car i have now, and plus it doesn't have as many saftey benefits as the Toyota Prius. My car now does not have an anti-lock break system, which could be deadly in bad weather. Since my timing was not ideal as you said, i would be fine with waiting a little while until finances are not so tight. Maybe we could look into purchasing an older version of this car, or even a used, less expensive version that still has the same economic and saftey features as this car. I would be grateful if you reconsidered my proposal.
Thank you,
Your daughter.

Vietcong member turned into a martyr

According to Eddie Adams, this photograph was taken on February 1st, 1968, and shows General Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting Nguyen Van Lem ("Bay Lap"), a member of the Vietcong. Adams admits that he "killed the general with my camera." The main purpose of the picture was to show the atrocity of the Vietnam War, but one glance at the picture without knowing the history causes the viewer's sympathies to be placed with the wrong individual. As Adams notes, "Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths." The picture makes a viewer see Lem as innocent, and unworthy of such a brutal death, but doesn't explain how Lem has been the cause of countless other deaths. Adams felt guilty after taking the picture, and realized that the picture had caused disgrace to Loan. Adams even mentions that he would have rather "been known more for the series of photographs I shot of 48 Vietnamese refugees who managed to sail to Thailand a 30-foot boat, only to be towed back to the open seas by Thai marines." He sees the pain that a picture can cause. Pictures dont always tell the a complete story, which as seen from this picture, can be disastrous

• Those protesting the Vietnam War
• This photograph should be printed on the cover of a major newspaper mainly because it shows the barbarous nature of the Vietnam War. This public display of an execution is both unnecessary and inhuman. Even if the man being killed was a brutal murderer, that doesn't change the fact that the man should be given a fair trial. He does have a wife, soon to be widow, that will be left in ruins once he is dead. The Vietnam War is an avoidable disaster and this picture proves it.
  

• The US government in support of the Vietnam War
• This photograph should not be printed on the cover of a major newspaper because so many civilians will see it and view the government as less professional. We want to be viewed as taking care of things in an orderly and efficient way, and this picture does not show it. If civilians saw this, they may think we are unorganized and heartless.
  

• Eddie Adams in 1969
• This photograph should be printed. Although it doesn't tell the important details and truth of the history of Lam, it brings up an important point about photography. That is, that it has to be taken with a grain of salt. This is just like any other form of communication, whether it be media, newspaper articles, magazine advertisements, etc. This photograph stresses that you can't trust something without getting the whole story. Even though this photograph took away from Nyugen Ngoc Loan's respect, it teaches an important lesson of trust.
  

• Nyugen Ngoc Loan (man doing the execution)
• This photograph should not be printed for the sake of Nyugen Ngoc Loan's decency. This photograph is degrading to him, and makes him look less honorable for shooting a man who would be intitially considered innocent by viewers. Loan's family and friends would look at this picture and see a different man than the one they come in contact with. They would see a hostile and spontaneous man. When in reality, Loan was probably logical and reasoned. This photograph would serve no any other purpose to Loan than to humiliate him.
  

• Nguyen Van Lam's widow (widow of the man being executed)
• This photograph should not be printed. A widow does not need more reminders that her husband was involved in a the communist group, the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam. What wife would want to see her husbands face right before he died? This photograph would only bring back devastating memories. When a loved one dies, pictures of that person in a happy state are most comforting. This widow would already think about her deceased husband everyday, and why would it be worth it to remind her of the negative aspects of his life?
  

• A publisher who must decide if this picture should appear in a fifth grade history book (assume that the photo has now appeared in the newspaper and has won the Pulitzer Prize)
• This photograph should not appear in a fifth grade history book, unless it told the true story behind it. Fifth graders are strongly influenced by photographs, and would get the wrong impression from the picture. Automatically, they would assume that the man shot was unworthy of dying, and may not be able to take another side and thing abstractly about the event.
  

A safe baby and mommy, but a dead daddy. Is it worth it?

This photograph allows the viewer to sympathize with the pregnant woman because of it's angle, focus, and subjects. If an adult, about the same hight as the woman was standing at the funeral a couple feet away from the woman, this is what they would see. The view does not look at the woman from below, like a childs view, or from above. Instead, it's straight on. This may be used to remind viewers that a death in the family can happen to anyone. The angle is personal and the woman is relatable. It is a side view of the woman, so we're not able to see her face completely. As humans, we naturally do not want to see someone in mourning, and sometimes try to pretend it's not happening. We want everything and everyone to be content. This may relate to some people's perpective of the war. They know it's going on, but they do not know how to face it. The camera is focused in on the woman and the american flag, leaving the background images (white wall, man in uniform) blurred. This relates to the woman's situation. She is consumed by the death of her husband, and probably can not think about anything else going on in the world but her baby and that. The subjects in the photograph are the man in uniform, the woman, the baby, and the man in the casket. Even though we can not see the baby or the man in the casket, it does not take away from the significance of them. Only part of the casket is shown, but the upper part of the womans body including her baby is shown. This may be trying to say that death is bound to happen, and that you have to move on and focus on what's important now, and in this case that is the baby. Overall, this picture portrays the serious nature of the Iraq war. It's not an event that's unimaginable and distant. Instead, it's real, and it's effect are deadly and tragic. The Iraq war leaves families devastated, and leaves mothers alone to take care of a child. A child that will never meet his father because his daddy was never able to make it home alive.

If i was including this image in an argumentative essay, i would argue the visual as proof of the tragedy the Iraq war causes. I would elaborate on lives left behind, like the mother and baby in this picture. I would also focus on how the casket is pushed aside, and has an American flag on it. Instead of being open casket, which may be grotesque and too hard ot deal with, the casket is closed and covered. A mother with a soon to be born baby would not need to see her husband's dead body because she would have enough to deal with already. The man in uniform in the back would be important to mention, because it shows the heroic and respectable aspect of the father who died.

The caption i would put for this photograph is "A safe baby and mommy, but a dead daddy. Is it worth it?" This caption is trying to appeal to Pathos, because death is an extremely emotional event. I wanted to emphasize how the mother and baby are still alive, but their hearts will be broken and unmendable because a wife will never see her husband again, and a baby will never meet his/her father. The logos in the caption is "Is it worth it?". This brings up the importance of whether the Iraq War should be fought or not, since it ends up killing innocent people.

Toys and body image.

Argument 1: "Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen Through Action Toys"
Harrison Pope, Robert Olivardia, Amanda Gruber, and John Borowieki argue a psychiatric view of action toys. They explain how these action toys are a reflection upon society's standards, and how they're a cause to men having negative body images. Collectively, they explain how as time has progressed, the size of male bodies in action toys has steadily increased. They gained this knowledge from measuring various body parts on the action toys (ie. biceps, chest, waist). Body dysmorphic disorder and muscle dysmorphia are two listed problems that the authors claim men deal with, that can cause them to be obsessed about certain body issues. These authors also expand on why the action toy image has changed, primarily relating it to the fact that overall people are more muscular than they were decades ago.

The tone of this argument is formal and reasoned. Most of the authors are graduates of Harvard, and are trying to make a scientific argument. They use measurements and dates for evidence, which makes their argument effective for people who want raw data to back them up. For example, the article mentions how "the earliest figure has no visible abdominal muscles; his 1975 counterpart shows some abdominal definition; and the 1994 figure displays...sharply rippled abdominals..."(pg.287). They give progressive dates to show the progressive change of the bodies. As audiences go, for this particular study i would pick a group of people interested in the facts, and people who want serious information of how toys have changes with their environment.

The assertions made in this article seem a little too far-fetched. I do believe that some ideas are credible, and that men do have body issues because of our culture, however connecting all that into toys seems almost ridiculous. They do have good evidence to back up their assertions though. I give them credit for that.

Argument 2: "G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal"
In deep contrast to the psychiatric view that the previous authors argue, Kim Franke-Folstad offers a less serious, and more personal perspective on Action Toys. Franke-Folstad claims her opinions about how ridiculous the psychiatrist of viewpoint (of Harrison Pope) is, and instead focuses on the fact that toys are toys. She emphasizes that it's better to have less realistic toys.

Franke-Folstad's tone is conversational and humorous. She focuses on telling the audience that looking at toys from a scientific perpesctive is absurd, because they are toys, and only toys. She's adament and very sure of herself in her assertions. For example she uses phrases like "Here we go again"(pg.292), referring to the size of G.I Joe's bicept being a "dangerous trend"(pg.292). She also says things like "But a plastic doll? To suggest that even little boys measure manliness by taking a ruler to their G.I.Joes is comical"(pg.292). An audience for this writer would have to have a sense of humor. I can see Franke-Folstad doing a comedy show about how absurd the Harvard assertions are. Franke-Folstad is effective in pressing her argument by being using casual language. She's not trying to make inferences about disorders men have , so she doesn't need to back up her evidence with years and measurements.

The assertions made in this article are just as extreme as the last. Both articles give the polar opposite views. In this article, the assertions were not from studies, but rather from the author's personal opinion. When i was a child my parents decided not to buy me any cooking/cleaning sets and toys because they thought that was influencing a certain role on me as a girl. Today i know that i dont have a "women stay at home and cook" viewpoint, but i think thats from the accumulated education i received growing up, and not so much the toys i played with when i was younger. In fact, i would have liked to have a kitchen set when i was little and enjoyed playing with them at my friends houses. Kitchen sets arn't the same as dolls and G.I. joes, but i think they idea is the same. I'm not sure that toys have such an impact on your body image, but i do agree that toys have changed in size because of how bodies have changed and standards have been raised.

Steroids: It can't be black and white.

As I was watching this video, a list of questions flowed into my head. Why are all of these stories glorifying steroids? What constitutes a healthy male? How many studies have been conducted on this? What about that horror story about Greg Valentino on TLC ? Isn't there always another side? Although it may come across as ignorant, I’ve always associated the word bad with steroids. However, i realize there are certain medical drugs that can relieve symptoms that have steroids in them, which are certainly not detrimental. Why dont people rely on working out and eating healthy to get buff? Isn't there a natural way to do this, that doesn't involve ending up looking like a huge leathery, bumpy, waxy form?

That's a lot of questions. The fallacy of the arguments presented in the video is that there was no argument. The individuals questioned claimed steroids to have no bad long term effects, and that they were great as long as you used precaution, and are a "healthy adult male". If this is true, why would there be people going to court against steroids? Why is the president making statements about steroid use in sports? I dont think he would be against a simple side effect like "some acne and breast tenderness". Heck, i'd be up for something if that was the only side effect. Something had to have stunted the idea that steroids are bad.

Maybe steroids can be used responsibly, if someone is old enough is willing to take the chances. I do not see steroid use (for sports atleast) as acceptable or healthy for people in high school, and possibly even college. So many people overdose on drugs, and i can see this happening with steroids. How many people are not careful with steroids and over-do it? It seems like plastic surgery to me. That's an addiction to many, and it can cause serious side effects, like death. You can get infections from this, you could die.

I think the video i watched should be contrasted with the one on the bottom of this post: It shows my instinctive idea that steroids are detrimental.

Athletes and Steroids:
The UIL Anabolic Steroid Testing Program seems a little invasive to me. Going to schools and testing kids in grades 9-12 for steroid use? This is scary to me. The idea that kids can't be trusted anymore, and that they have to be tested for drugs at school. What's next, giving girls pregnancy tests? I'm not saying i'm against this, because i see where it could be handy. If high school kids are using steroids, i think they have a higher chance of developing life-threatening problems with them than some adults would. They may not see the long-term effects, and may be more concerned with getting buff for their crush. There should be different standards for high school vs. professional sports. High schools should not accept steroid use at all. Professional sports could allow it in certain circumstances, since it is the person’s choice. It's really hard to decide on this issue because I do see steroid use as a form of cheating, and would prefer it only used for medical reasons.
For the most part, i agree with Hoberman that "steroid use is an expected manifestation our culture's demand to be the best rather than merely do our best" Standards are set unusually high in our culture, and to reach those standards takes a lot of time and effort. When there's an easy way out, people grab it. Children look up to athletes, and these athletes shouldn't be frauds. Athletes should be healthy, and should work hard without using anabolic steroids to get where they want to.

If such drugs like these weren’t so easily accessible would this even be an issue?

Pro-ana websites: Communities and catastrophes

1. Against Pro-ana websites
The SADD website shows that throughout the nation, "12.3% of high school students had gone without eating for 24 hours or more to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight during the last 30 days" 2005 CDC Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance. This goes to show how concerned society is with their body image.
After viewing various Pro-ana(Anorexia Nervosa)/Pro-mia (Bulimia Nervosa) websites, I was shocked to see many of them full of "thinspiring" photographs to keep girls determined to be as thin, however they lacked substancial moral support. Yes, there are chat room and forums, but these consist of girls/women who already have a certain mindset, and are not likely to listen to anyone with a differing opinion. These websites are not helping anyone get healthier, they're only continuing a life-threatening disorder. Although the girls and women would most likely not see the termination of the website as a benefit, they may eventually come to realize that they needed help from doctors, family, and friends who cared about them increasing their life-span. If these websites were shut down, pro-ana and pro-mia individuals could gain the mental and physical strength that they needed to become relatively healthy again. As Davis mentioned in the article "A Secret Society of the Starving", "the sites reinforce the secretiveness and the 'specialness' of the disorder" (pg.273). When someone has a health problem, their initial instinct may be to not worry about it, because it could be something simple. Often that is the case, and the problem disappears. In this case though, a simple goal to loose 5 pounds can turn into a goal of 50, and can develop into OCD behavior ("Pollack mentions that both anorexia and bulimia are highly O.C.D.(pg.274)". If the sites are removed, pro-ana and pro-mia individuals will have to find another outlet that will help get them out of the all-consuming and dangerous lifestyle they're in. If they were given positive messages, and not bombarded with negative poems with phrases about not being able to do anything right, and never winning fights in life (see http://www.proanamia.com/welcome.html for poems), then they may have a more optimistic and positive attitude about changing their lifestyle. And hopefully, they could come to realize that there are other ways to live. For once, these individuals (primarily young adult girls) could worry about how they'll do on a test, rather than how many calories they've consumed in the day.

2. For Pro-ana websites

Imagine you're dealing with a life-threatening condition, and are scared and maybe even embarassed to talk about the issue with your parents, friends, and possibly significant other. Where would you turn then? To an intimidating doctor to tell you what you already know? A doctor that would tell you that if you dont change what you're doing, you might die, then may show you statistics, and mention that "20% of people suffering from anorexia will prematurely die from complications related to their eating disorder, including suicide and heart problems" This may be a little too intimidating. You probably wouldn't go to the doctor, or to your family, or your friends, or your significant other. A lot of pro-ana and pro-mia inviduals find release and support on many websites that are aware of the dangers of anorexia and bulemia, but also realize that they can get people overwhelmed that they feel there is no way out of the disorder. Like a patient for any life-threatening disease, a lot these individuals want to escape it, and they understand how degrading it can be to their health, however they still can't run away from it because they're addicted to it. They need support, and these websites provide a community for these individuals. These websites display statistics about the diseases, have poetry, low-fat and calorie recipies, pictures, ways to calculate your BMI, and even humorous tips (i.e. 2. If you drink a diet soda with a candy bar, the calories in the candy bar are cancelled out by the diet soda.) These websites have information like most diet websites would have, except that these websites are not for people who want to loose a couple pounds, or lose weight in a healthy way. These individuals realize they have issues, but need someone to share them with, and the best way to do this is through an anonymous website.

3. Middle Ground
It's difficult to decide whether pro-ana/mia websites should be terminated so that these individuals can find other outlets to get help with their condition, or if the websites should be kept so that these people can get support and live in a virtual community of people with common viewpoints. I've caught myself saying "i need to stop eating!" and "if i could just loose 15 pounds..." I dont really think about the seriousness of it, and am glad that i havn't taken drastic measures to lose weight or anything, but i can see how easily it is to becoming wound up in an idea like that.
If these websites were terminated, and the pro-ana/mia community was left to find these new outlets, would their conditions worsen? Would they be courageous enough to tell someone about their problems? Honestly, I dont know. I understand that the issue is potentially life-threatening, and could see people becoming involved in other self-destructive beheviors (cutting, drugs, alcohol, etc.) if they didn't have this personal website. On the other hand, i can take an optimistic view and hope that people would find confidence to lead themselves away from such a consuming disorder. One day they may see a rerun of Oprah's show on body disorders, and see a woman with an eating disorder who is hospitalized many times, and eventually dies. There are always people, events, and certain conversations that can change someones perspective about something, and make them strive to be different. These websites can be both communities and catastrophes.

Runners, joggers, and dead bodies?

This ad confused me when i first glanced at it. My attention was immediately drawn to the words "dead bodies". I was wondering why runners would be associated with dead people, and also if people would be persuaded to do their "civic duty and run" after viewing this ad. Am I suppose to be running so that i can help solve a crime? Maybe if i wear those dirty black shoes with hints of bright orange, then i can be just like detectives Benson and Stabler on Law and Order SVU!
Since I dont run, i kind of wanted to brush aside the ad. Why would it be important to me? However, i was curious to see what kind of point Pearl Izumi was trying to make. It seemed like he calling joggers weak and runners strong, which is a pretty blunt and potentially offensive statement to some people.
The background of the ad is black, which reminded me of death, and the text is white, which i thought could be an reference to life. The contrast of these two colors is eye-catching to viewers. If the background was white, and the text black, people probably wouldn't have glanced twice at it. The image of shoes in the ad shows that when you wear these particualar shoes, you will go through adventures and get a little dirty on the way, but in the end it'll be worth it. The light shining on the shoes reminded me of a halo effect, like the shoes are angels, or the person who wears them will be a hero. By alluding to television forensics shows, the ad draws people in, since much of the population watch t.v. Also, there are so many crime investigation shows that people are bound to have flipped through them at some point. Plus, if YOU wear the shoes, YOU might solve a crime! The ad used a cause and effect argument. It demonstrated that if you wear these shoes and run then you will live an exciting lifestyle and always be on edge.
The value of determination is promoted in this ad. The dirty shoes show that if you work hard, it will all be worth it in the end. The ad discourages being lazy, and taking the easy way out to do things.
Pearl Izumi draws attention to both the runner and the jogger in this add, and does alienate the "jogging" population. He makes a point to say that joggers are ordinary and dont take chances. This could be an advantage to encourage joggers to start running, but i see it more of a detriment because a lot of people could be offended if they were called ordinary or boring. Some people have body issues and can't run, so what are they suppose to do?
The appeal of Pathos is most strongest to me in this ad. After reading the ad, i felt rather shunned because i'm not a runner. But then again, the ad made me laugh too because of how serious and intense the colors, images, etc. made it.



If i could choose only one ad to run in a magazine i would choose the "I am what I am" ad. This ad is not as time consuming to read, and gets straight to the point. The first ad was far more interesting to me though, but people on the go dont have time to read a huge paragraph of information, then analyze it. This ad seems more effective because it appeals to everyone. It's not blunt, and doesn't excluding the jogging population like the previous ad. It emphasizes a calmer approach to running, and says to "run easy", not to run like a mad man to find dead bodies. I believe that far more people could relate to this ad than they could the other.

Blog #1 To play or not to play? I think a medium.

1. There is an abundance of visual rhetoric throughout the America's Army website. Everything about the website is stamped with 'army', which would persuade many potential players that their game is worth investing in. The intended audience is young adults, and anyone interested in the Army and video games (there is even employment information for the website!). The background image contains camouflage, and digitally created army members, which already sets the Army mood of viewers. The gray and greenish colors add a serious feel to the website, which reflects that the game will be close to real-life, and that viewers will virtually be immersed in the atmosphere that real soldiers are in. Since there is so much visual rhetoric, i believe the website is pretty effective in appealing to it's audience. Plus, the website has managed to merge real-life (interactive gaming events) with fantasy (the game). There is information about real life hero's, which could influence people to join the army, and there are videos and information about the game.

2. I do not agree with Boyle that this website/game indoctrinates the ideology of war. I understand that you can practice teamwork and strategy in the game, but I do not think that through the game or website you can fully comprehend war ideology. Someone would have to be involved in real-life activities to understand it. My best friend's dad went to Iraq for a couple months, and from what my friend has told me about his experiences, i do not believe anyone could feel the extent of his emotions from playing a game. He was in a life-threatening situation, away from his wife and daughters, and away from the comforts of America.

On the website i found the following quote:
"Through its emphasis on team play, the game demonstrates these values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage and makes them integral to success in America's Army." Although the game demonstrates these qualities, i do not believe that it can teach them.

3. I think that this website is more intent on providing entertainment for individuals, and to interest them in becoming part of the Army. For some people, it's hard to separate reality from fantasy, so it could cause them to act violently from playing this game or a game like this. However, i do not believe the web site's intention is to promote violence or to make teens more violent.

Side note: I believe that there is a time for fantasy, and a time for reality, and that they shouldn't be as closely intertwined as they are in games like this. From the readings, I saw many differing opinions about violence in video games and it's effects on people. Jones viewed violent media as an outlook for some of kids emotions. I can understand this because the games can take kids away to a place they'd never be in real life, and let them do things they couldn't do in real life. In addition, i understand what Provenzo Jr. was saying, that in society today kids are spending so much time in simulations that it's taking away from encounters in the real world. As long as people can separate fantasy from reality in real life, i do not see video games as much of a problem.