GO STUDY! (abroad)

GO STUDY! (ABROAD)





Persuasion has been studied for over two thousand years. From philosophers like Aristotle to recent philosophers like Kenneth Burke. For all these years photospheres have been arguing and presenting their theories on topics like rhetoric and aesthetics. I will be talking about some of those theories. They are the cognitive consistency theory, systematic processing model, and need for cognition. I will apply these theories to why St. John’s University students should consider joining the study abroad program at our university.
First, I would like to explain the theories. The cognitive consistency theory rests on the assumption that humans want to reduce inconsistencies because they create stress or discomfort. A fundamental principle here is that people who are stable and content with life are more difficult to change. Decisions may result from other motives, some motivation like discomfort or a positive opportunity is typically necessary to move people to make major changes when they perceive life is already good. Ethical questions come up regarding the intentional creation of stress and tension. The systematic processing model is part of the HSM, or the heuristic-systematic model. This represents a comprehensive treatment of judgment-related information. It’s a slow, high-effort reasoning process bearing strong resemblance to the central processing route in the ELM, or elaboration likelihood model. Heuristics are mental rules of thumb though they are not very accurate but can still be useful to deal with common situations. They are strategies



that help us reduce the time it takes to make decisions. Heuristics are used in everyday life. For example if 4 people are at a stop sign, instead of know the exact rules and see who was there first, a person might wave their hand as a shortcut to concluding who should go first or not. Some heuristics can be misleading too. This leads to the last theory, the need for cognition. It is a cognitive motivation to process information and is a general trait that some people enjoy thinking and others do not. People high in the need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments whereas people low in the need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. Psychological research on the need for cognition has been conducted using self-report tests, where research participants answered a series of statements such as "I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve" and were scored on how much they felt the statements represented them. The results have suggested that people who are high in the need for cognition score slightly higher in verbal intelligence tests but no higher in abstract reasoning tests. There were no gender differences in the need for cognition. Research concludes that individuals high in NFC are less likely to attribute higher social desirability to more attractive individuals or to males. Individuals high in NFC report higher life satisfaction.



Before I go into the actual application of these theories, I would first like to explain into detail what exactly the study abroad program at St. John’s University is, and



what they do and do not provide for students. There are many study abroad programs at St. John’s. A student has a choice of picking from over 15 different countries in which they would like to spend a semester in. I feel that the study abroad program is an amazing opportunity we have at our university and most students should definitely take advantage of it. I say this because I took that opportunity when I studied abroad in Rome,
Italy last year. Everyone knows and talks about the academic and cultural learning advantage this has, but after going through it, I believe, at least for me anyway, it was a real test of will. Knowing whether you can learn, think, and solve everyday life problems on your own in a foreign country away from your family and home is the real challenge. St. John’s feels that while abroad, students will have the once in a lifetime opportunity to become immersed in an entirely new cultural setting. Being abroad gives students the opportunity to discover their strengths and abilities, conquer new challenges, and solve new problems. This is a great opportunity to give greater depth to a student’s academic career by making the world your classroom. You can even learn a new language where everywhere is the language lab. Students can boost their language skills and will be surprised how fast they can learn a language when living in a particular culture. Many students end up adding a language minor to diversify their academic report. St. John’s claims that as a University, they commit themselves to academic excellence but also the pursuit of social justice and aid to the poor. As global citizens opportunities must be searched for out all over the globe. Students will have the chance to go beyond their nation's boundaries and help families right in their own country. Students who have worked in soup kitchens in Rome or hospitals in Paris have gained a new perspective on other cultures and people. Studying abroad is an investment in a student’s future; one



that helps distinguishes you from the crowd. Employers look for well-rounded candidates who display drive and independent thinking; by studying abroad you can demonstrate your leadership skills. The world is becoming more and more globalized every day. America has invested billions in foreign countries, and companies around the world continue to invest in the international market. Through an employer's eyes, students who have studied abroad are self-motivated, independent, willing to embrace challenges, and able to cope with diverse situations. Their experience living and studying in a foreign country, will give them the skills necessary to negotiate in another culture, and acquire language skills that will set them apart from other job applicants.
My line of argument is that despite the financial burdens, the study abroad program is something that every student should at least consider seriously while attending St. John’s. For students who are on financial aid, the semester fee will be paid. However, there is an $8,000 study abroad fee. This includes housing, 30 day meal plan, and a one week all expense paid European Union trip. It does not include air fare to go and come back from here to your destination. When I was signing up for the program, there was one scholarship available to who ever wrote the best essay on a certain topic. Anyway, it is understandable that $8,000 is a lot of money to come up with on top of the tuition fee. It would be very difficult to change the minds of students who are very much content



with their life here on Queens Campus. This is an application of the cognitive consistency theory. Going to a foreign country for 4 months and having a huge



financially weight is something that needs to be well thought out before attempting. This is where the systematic processing model is practical. It’s a slow, high-effort reasoning process bearing strong resemblance to the central processing route in the ELM, or elaboration likelihood model. This is a decision that needs to be made rationally and needs to use the central route. High reasoning and use of logic is a must for important choices as this. The need for cognition is a cognitive motivation to process information and is a general trait that some people enjoy thinking and others do not. As to the study abroad program, some students would get turned on to the idea of going abroad immediately before even inquiring information about it. On the other hand, there are a handful of students who would get turned off by the idea, and mostly it would be due to the financial weight. I am confident in saying this because I have seen very bright and ambitious students who were very much interested in joining the program but were unable to due lack of funds. Some students said that even if they had the funds, they did not think it was a good idea to go abroad because they would party too much and after spending so much money they were afraid of getting a bad GPA. I even remember one student who wanted to do the Discover the World Program; this is a new program St. John’s came up with last year. This program entails six weeks of the semester in Rome, another six weeks in Paris, and three weeks in Salamanca, Spain. Back to the student, he was explained the strict but fair rules about not getting in trouble through out the program because they will not hesitate to throw a student out. The student (who will remain nameless) said he cannot attend the program because he would definitely be thrown out. In hind sight, there was a lot of misinformation given to us as students after we had gotten accepted in the program. The woman in charge (Kathryn Paskor) of the program and the one who was to provide us accurate information did just the opposite. She assumed things and passed it on to us as if it was completely precise information but it was not. I noticed the University used mere exposure as a method to catch students’ attention. There were banners and signs all over campus, the use of mere exposure is the more the exposure the more we like. Pentad is a tool of analysis for the semantic dimension of language developed by Burke. This has five central elements: scene, act, agent, agency, and purpose. Scene is the physical location, the situation, time, social place, occasion and other elements. Act refers to any motivated action. The words and actions taken by a person, and their appropriateness for the scene, ultimately affect





outcome. Agent is Burke’s term for the person or group of persons who take action in the scene. They are the actors or characters that make things happen. Agency is the tool, method, or means used by persuaders to accomplish their ends. Finally, purpose is the reason an agent acts in a given scene using a particular agency. The persuader’s true purpose can be more, or less, apparent. The scene in this case is the location of the study abroad program. The act would be to actually sign up for the program. The agent would be the students attending the program. The agency is St. John’s University and any other schools affiliated with the study abroad program. Finally the purpose is a student signing up for the program though St. John’s University for the study abroad program.

There are four contextual effects, physical attractiveness, social attractiveness, task attractiveness, and credibility. The physical attractiveness in this case would be the appeal towards the city of where to study. The social attractiveness could be many factors. It could be the fact that a person is going to me meet new people in a different setting and culture, or that a close friend is joining the program and they would like to join it because their friend is going. Creditability is factual and believability, depending on how one wants to define it. In this case the credibility would be that which will be on a student’s transcript; that they studied abroad and gained a lot of experience and maturity, which really stands out on a transcript. Another great application to this would be the Yale 5-stage developmental model. The five stages are identity, legitimacy, participation, penetration, and distribution. Identity is self-explanatory, legitimacy are warrants and credibility, participation is about getting members, penetration is brand


name recognition, and distribution is when the movement becomes an establishment. In the case of the study abroad program, the participation is actually getting students to join and make the program grow, the penetration is to spread the word about the program and label it with a positive recognition, and distribution, where the program is growing in popularity, funding, and has firmly established itself as an important part of St. John’s University.
In conclusion, my argument was that despite the financial burdens and other things, the study abroad program is well worth the time, money, and effort. I have explained theories, and then explained their application on students and how they may have made their decisions. I have shown why it would be worth trying out the program, and even if students are unsure, there are a lot more students who attended this program than there were when I went, so they would be the primary resource for all questions students may have. I would completely have to criticize the faculty in charge of the program though. They give students so much misinformation, and try to rush them into the program just so they can collect that tuition check as fast as possible. Remember that if a student is at all seriously considering going abroad, that they get all the information they need. Ask any and all questions because once you have made your final decision there are no turning back. As the program grows, and it is, there will be more scholarship opportunities to get a free ride abroad for a full semester. I have given good solid factual information from my own personal experience, and I hope students continue to make this amazing and life changing program grow.

THE UNUSUAL SUSPECTS

THE UNUSUAL SUSPECTS


This is by far one of my favorite movies of all time. It is so original and has an amazing combination of a fantastic cast and an exceptional script. It is one of the greatest suspense endings of all time, but nor because most people cannot figure it out, but because it actually all makes sense at the end and yet you are still baffled and confused at the same time.
I believe “Verbal” uses ethos, which is a rhetoric technique used to directly appeal to an authority in order to strengthen your argument. Verbal basically has a long argument against Kujan about certain events that may have or may not have taken place. Verbal is using his very special talent of deception and rhetorical reasoning towards an authority figure (Kujan) and as a result ends up strengthening his argument.
Verbal makes excellent use of logos as well which is something that’s said with intelligence, reasoning, and use of logic. He makes excellent use of the useless information behind Kujan. He takes all the random information and twists and turns it into information he can use to tell Kujan a long fake story which actually follows certain logic, and Kujan falls for it. He also appeals to the audience, which is called pathos. He does this by portraying his physical and emotional weakness. He shows himself off as a cripple who is also borderline stupid. This is done to get sympathy from the audience. I mean, who wouldn’t believe a dumb-ass cripple totally down on his luck and has had a horrible life? And just like that, he’s gone.

Final Project Presentation Schedule

Monday, April 28
1) Andrew
2) Cheryl
3) Manny

Wednesday, April 30
1) Doug
2) Cara
3) Sam
4) Meredith

Friday, May 2
1) Leanda
2) Miro
3) Ebony
4) Ian

The Usual Suspects in 33 seconds/Reaction

This movie is a terrific physiological thriller with one of the best twists I’ve seen in a long time. There is just one problem. I saw this movie about 10 years too late. I’m sure when Kevin Spacey was a fairly unknown actor this movie really left many who viewed it with their jaws dropped and that utter look of WTF just happened here. As a matter of fact, when I viewed it with my classmates some still had this plastered look of “Damn, I thought I had it” on their faces. I, on the other hand, knew it was Kevin Spacey from the beginning. Now please, don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean to sound like some pretentious film snob who goes around acting like he knows every movie plot before it’s ever put on paper because this just isn’t the case. I thought the movie was well done and all the actors in it did a phenomenal job. The plot started off simple enough, but only in the end could one truly appreciate the complexities of this movie. We are left wondering many things such as: Who really is Keyser Soza? Was Hockney planning on skipping out alone with the loot? What in the flying fuck was Benicio Del Toro saying and why did I find it so damn funny?
The ethos of Kint is being built from the moment we see him being interrogated by agent Kujan. The whole movie sets us up like the sentimental saps we are and we fall for it hook, line, and sinker. First let’s start with the fact that Kint has cerebral palsy. It’s kind of hard to start off with yea that’s the guy who killed all those people, the slow guy with the limp. Then we throw on the fact that this guy will ramble on about anything and everything, so immediately we as the audience think that there is no way in hell blabber mouth here could keep a secret so once again, we trust him with open arms. Finally we are made to believe that Kint is nothing more than a scarred little two bit criminal who has bitten up way more than he can chew and now is caught up in this dark world he has no business being a part of. As a matter of fact, when he is crying on his knees in front of agent Kujan the audience now feels that Kint is a representation of the everyday man in the story.
In short, Kint represents us. And Kujan is more of the higher up authority figure who always comes down hard on us, tells us what to do, and thrives on the intimidation of the common man. But the fact of the matter is that this is all one big farce. Kint is nothing like us. Kint is the master manipulator. He is the deceptive narrator that all those Edger Allen Poe stories spoke of, and yet we did not learn our lesson. So we are left in wonderment of how we could have been so easily deceived. It appears to be obvious in retrospect that Kint is the one behind it all. The foreshadowing is told through parallels of the devil and the power of myths over reality. How could we be so blind? This is why the movie is so well done. It’s a twisted and complicated plot, yet once it is revealed it all seems so simple.
So how is it that I knew in advance that Kint was the puppeteer pulling everyone’s strings? It’s quite simple. It has nothing to do with a keen sense of plot development. It’s FUCKING KEVIN SPACEY. This is the same man who has played the character that has brought down superman, defended racist bigots, decapitated Brad Pitt’s wife and gave it to him as a present, not to mention, the only man to my knowledge to ever audit Santa Clause. I mean Keyser Soza is nothing compared to the ass who audits Santa… Have you no soul man?

WTC

Check this out and tell me how you guys feel. I have been trying to show the class these videos for so long now but Jaime, love u alot, is taking too long to let me lol. check this out: 

Reply to the Dunkin Donut

Hey,

I dont think the commerical was actually offensive to any ethic backgroup. Whther it is Italian or French i do not see the commercial offensive at all. I just feel like the commercial is trying to sell their product by stating that Americans do not need fancy names to sell their products. The simple word as Latte is enough as opposed to the usual Tall, kjasghaig Frapuccino to sell this product. The commerical is stating that the simplicity of words is alot better than these usual tongue twisting words to sell. Americans are becoming more and more difficult and want the "booshua" or the classy coffee to make themselves feel higher in class. Straight up, whether you are drinking Poland Spring or fancy shancy water, it is just water!!

Dunkin' Donuts - Fritalian Commercial

I saw this commercial about a month back and for some reason it really got under my skin. I didn’t think much of it at first because commercials in general now a days blow goats. But at second glance I realized this might not be your every day, run of the mill, (insert cliché about ordinary things here) commercial. No, there is something far worse afoot here than your typical marketing fixation with farm animal fellatio. The commercial undermines the very fabric of which our nation is woven together with. What’s great about America is the cultural differences among our citizens. I take solace in the fact that we have a country whose language, culture, and overall “look” does not consist of one image or race, but several. I know it may appear that I’m looking too far into this and that the commercial was just attempt at humor, not meant to be taken seriously, but let’s break down this commercial.
“My mouth can’t form these words”—meaning this is not my native tongue. “Is it French or is it Italian…perhaps Fritalian”—which I take as a slap in the face to cultural diffusion. Apparently if it’s not English, then we as Red, White, and Blue blooded Americans don’t give “Two Shits” about it. The fact that we are so pompous to just lump in two completely different cultures as if they are the same tells us a little something about how we view the world. Then we have the nerve to get pissed when the rest of the world call us stupid, arrogant, and undignified. Who cares, French, Italian it’s all the same shit right? I mean it’s either American or it’s not. Wrong, what makes America “America” is that we have made an entire culture based on all the different cultures of the world. We are a nation that can have apple pie and wash it down with a cappuccino. We can drink Coca Cola while eating a Taco.
It’s asinine to think that we will one day get back to this original America when everyone spoke English and drank Coors Light. Well, news flash, that America never existed. We have always been a land of immigrants. The Native Americans didn’t speak English and for those of you who still think Columbus discovered America because he had a flag, well I hate to break it to you but he didn’t speak English either. He spoke Italian and probably some form of Spanish considering he was sailing on behalf of the King and Queen of Spain. Not to mention his crew was all Spanish. An America without the integration of different ideas, cultures, and beliefs wouldn’t be the same.
Oh, just one more thing, and I direct this to the high ups at Dunkin Donuts. Last time I checked, “Latte” was not an English word, so how can you say with a straight face that you can come to DD where you order things in English, not Fritalian. That’s the dumbest statement of all. I was never a Starbucks kind of guy, but this commercial actually makes me want to spend $9 for a cup of coffee. Maybe you should stick to those Rachael Ray commercials instead of… actually on second thought I’d rather see more Fritalian ads.

Little Hitler

Is this what Burke predicted?

65%

D R A F T

D-R-A-F-T

My argument in regards to this paper is about the study abroad program here at our university. My argument is that despite what the costs are, the study abroad program is worth trying out. I will use theories like cognitive consistency theory, which basically means it is hard to change people who are already content. I will use this theory to try to prove that even through it is hard to change people who are already happy; it can still be done if presented in a proper and appealing manner. I will also use epistemic knowledge from my own personal experience from attending the study abroad program in Rome, Italy.
I will demonstrate why and how studying abroad can benefit a student in many ways by using the cognitive consistency theory and other key terms and vocabulary from the chapters. This will be the backbone of my argument. It will display the context of my argument by showing how the theories apply to the argument itself, but also will exhibit the overall rhetorical relation to the rest of the conversation. Another theory I was considering to apply to my argument was the systematic processing model which is a comprehensive, slow high-effort way of thinking and reasoning. This can be applied to every student considering this because it is an important decision which needs to be thought out using central processing due to the nature of the decision; send your daughter or son to a foreign country for 4 months on their own, not mention the financial weight being carried along with it.
Right before the conclusion is drawn; I will voice my opinion on the issue(s) and discuss things that I think are missing; if there are any holes in the argument or if I need to insert new information. An example might be different factors to which I am writing


this essay to, (St. John’s students who are interested or dubious about the study abroad program) financial issues or course options constraints, etc.
For the conclusion I will recap the thesis by briefly reviewing the theories and its application on my argument criticize my points to further solidify my argument, and remind the reader the importance of my argument.

Response to GAMER881’s Obama Speech Reaction

I have questioned whether or not I should respond to this reaction of the Obama speech. I must say it angered me to read some of the comments and ideas in this reaction, and quite honestly I felt if I had responded to this quickly I would simply be jumping head first into a written war of words. My goal here is not to simply say things for the sake of saying them. Nor is it my goal to in a sense retaliate to an attack. You see, unlike like some people in the political arena, I don’t find it necessary to use scare tactics to get my audience to listen. No, instead, I am responding simply because you have given me no other choice. I will not be the appeaser of inadequate accusations. I will not simply stand by and let another person push the great lie. The Nazi’s believed that if you told a lie long enough people will start to believe it or at the very least comply with you. The Bush administration uses this tool constantly. From weapons of mass destruction to the fact that we must give up our freedom (Patriot Act) if we want to be free. It was wrong when the Nazi’s did it, it was wrong when the Bush administration did it, and it’s still wrong when you try to use it “harmlessly” in a class reaction. Now don’t get me wrong, it is not my intention to put you in the same company as Hitler or Bush, far from it. What I am saying, however, is do not let your emotions get the better of you. When you allow this, things start to suffer, such as your arguments and credibility.

Take your statement about Obama having the media in his back pocket. Are you actually trying to say that Obama, a young senator from Illinois, has more backing in the media than the Clintons and the Republican Party combined? It can’t be money or power that put Obama in this position because the Clintons alone have got him beat there. This is the same media that played the Rev. Wright tirades on a continuous loop for weeks, now which by your own accord put Obama in this position to deliver his speech on race.

Next you said the Senator loves Wright who is black and his Grandmother who is white and to denounce him would be like denouncing his grandmother for racial slurs she has said around him. First off, paraphrasing is not your strong suite my friend. I mean, really, “in essence”? I think if you looked at the speech again or read the transcript you might not feel the same way.

You then went on to say you actually cringed when you heard this. That he did not separate himself enough from Rev. Wright, which you believe, was the goal of the speech, a goal in which he failed to reach. Well once again this is simply not the case. It was not the intentions of the Senator to distance himself from Wright, but to show that he is not Wright. He did not make these claims, his Reverend did. Must we all be held accountable for the words of our religious advisors? Isn’t there a separation between church and state for a reason?

It’s funny how where you see something cringe worthy, I see something praise worthy. I think it says something about a man’s character when he doesn’t simply take the easy political way out and deny his involvement with a man who has shown his family compassion over the years. I don’t agree with many positions of my friends but this doesn’t mean I would ever deny my friendship just because of something my friend said. The words Wright said may not resonate well with most of the American public, but at the same time we must think about why a person would raise such radical claims. Why is there this frustration and hatred for the American government and ideology?

You say Obama tiptoed around the Wright issue, but in fact he delved deeper into the issue than one might notice at first glance. You see, in talking about what caused these outbursts of racial intolerance was deep seeded ideologies on the problems of a culture. Obama made it a speech about race because it was already an issue of race. Black peoples’ struggles, white people’ struggles, and every color and hue in between‘s struggles. It’s not black people who cause white problems or vice versa. We all struggle with different issues, but in the end we all struggle, and the only way to move forward as a nation is to come together as one. This is the message Obama was trying to convey, and he did so with eloquence and poise. I have waited to give this response because I know how much it stings when one’s political views are attacked. We do not always think with clear heads in times of anger. This is how wars are started, freedoms are lost, and lines of communication are severed. We must learn to use central processing as apposed to peripheral. We must take time and think before we act. "He only will succeed in attaining the eminence at which we aim . . . who shall learn to speak correctly before he learns to speak rapidly."
- Quintillian, Institutes of Oratory, Book 2, Ch.4

how AFRAID are YOU?

FEAR APPEALS


The fear appeals PSAs we saw in class were horrifying at the very least. When I went back and thought about how I was feeling when I was watching them for the first time, I could not remember, even though it was just minutes ago. All I remember is being horrified. I do not remember the content of what the person was saying before their “accident”, but could vividly remember the “accident” itself, not to mention the petrifying screams from the first PSA. An explanation for this is that I was processing what I watched peripherally, not centrally. A peripheral route is at the low end of the elaboration continuum which means processing requires much less information that central route.
In 1953, Hovland, Janis, and Kelley laid the foundation proposing that fear would increase the likelihood of persuasion because it reduces emotional tension. Hovland said fear is only effective if it is sufficiently intense to create a drive state that recipients believe can be effectively countered by the recommended action. But if the recipients do not effectively counter the recommended action, then this theory is disproved. If I watched the first PSA (the one with the hot oil) and get through it without it being sufficiently intense, it would not be fearful, which is called efficacy. This is the perception of a threat being handled. It also depends on the credibility on the person issuing the threat because that will result in a lower compliance. According to Janis and Feshback (1967), high levels of inducing fear will usually result in defensive avoidance and low levels of fear are not enough to stimulate attitude change. Therefore, they concluded that using moderate levels of fear produces the best results.
Other types of messages that are high effective in inducing fear are messages that are said which our brains have previously stored, bringing back our own memory in relation to that fear. You can send without creating greater perceptions on the danger of something and result in a higher effect. It is an easy observation to make that fear is one of the most common persuasive devices used today. The predicament is the ethics of using them, which, I think, needs more debate.

Reaction to Obama Speech

After watching Barack Obama’s speech from March 18 in Philadelphia, I will say outright that I continue to be impressed with his ability to dance around every issue with such rhetorical elegance that even I start to fall into the passion that fuels the movement of Obama ’08. The man is a political animal; he continues to brilliantly portray himself as a political outsider and not the calculating, maneuvering politician that I believe him to be.

Before entering into the substance of his speech, one must take a step back and look at what led to the need for this speech and the parameters around which it was delivered. First, there is the underlying reason as to why Obama joined this church. This church is the epicenter of Chicago society – religiously, politically, and socially – everybody who is anybody attends this church (Oprah, Common, etc.) and Obama realized that he had to become a figure there if he wanted to advance in Chicago politics.

Second, one must not overlook the time at which he gave his speech, 11 am. Most people don’t think much of this but I started thinking as to why he would not give the speech prime time so that everyone could see what his position truly was – the basis for which the speech was supposed to be held. And then I realized the motive behind this – he did not want everybody to see this address first hand…BRILLIANT. This was an absolutely brilliant political move. By giving his speech at 11 am, the only large group of people who were available to view the speech was the media. The majority of Americans were either at work or at school, not available to view the speech first hand. Their only exposure to it was that evening, and the days that followed, when the media – which is in Obama’s back pocket – were sitting there signing its praises to everyone. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews went so far as to say it was the “first honest” speech he had heard about race in his lifetime. Sally Quinn hailed the speech as one of the greatest in all human history. Andrew Sullivan expressed similar enthusiasm, and delivered the verdict that “this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for a generation.” To allow the media to carry this story – the only perception of it that the public got was that it was “the greatest in all human history.” This was a brilliant political move on behalf of Obama and his campaign.

In regards to his speech, everything that was said about America and its history in its approach to racial issues was true. As I was watching the speech, I felt very much that I could be watching the next President of the United States, delivering his inaugural address in a desire to bring this nation into the future, a future that represents a post-racial society that has slowly been developing over the past 25 years.

Then I saw a caption at the bottom of the screen that read “Obama Speech Confronts Racial Division,” a thought that I have seen replayed by editorial columnists and media pundits throughout the past two days and reinforced as though he had just found the cure for cancer.

As I saw this, I started to think about what created the need for this speech in the first place. His need was not to outline the state of race relations in America but to address, and preferably denounce himself and his campaign from the hateful, anti-American rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright. In that regard, I feel he failed through his direct refusal to completely disconnect himself with Wright.

And then came the end of his speech, in which he talked about his white grandma and how he could not disconnect himself from her, despite her racist remarks that made him cringe, because of all the love and care she gave him. He reduced his grandmother to a rhetorical tool, invoking her love for him to manipulate our emotions and present it as a defense for his reluctance to denounce Wright. In essence he says, “I love Wright, who is black. I love my grandma, who is white. Would you have me damn my grandma by damning Wright, as he damned America?" It hurt me to watch it, and I sure hope it hurt him to say it.

Now, do I or any other American with half a brain believe that Obama agrees with such utter nonsense as was mentioned? Of course not! As Obama has said many times, he loves this country; as his story is one that is only written in the United States of America. The real issue that was not addressed was that Senator Obama sat for twenty years – nearly all of his adult life – and undoubtedly listened to such angry hate speech (that would certainly make his white, loving grandma cringe) and said, or more notably did, nothing about it. He did not leave the church, he did not protest the statements at the time they were made, he continued to be very close to a man that has a lot of favor with the community he needed to launch him into office. What troubles me, however, is that after twenty years of hearing these statements that he “disagrees with,” he brought this person into his family on some of the most intimate levels – Wright married the Obama and his wife and baptized both his daughters – and exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of "anti-white vitriol. "

Who you surround yourself with says a lot about who you are. Though Obama may disagree with Wright’s statements, the fact that he was willing to associate himself with Wright for so long either showed either a severe lack of judgment or a willingness to look the other way for political gain, either way an explicit contradiction of his self-proclaimed need to run for President.

But we also must remember that Obama joined Wright’s church for a reason, just as he maintained a close relationship with political fixer Tony Rezko for a reason. Obama is a smart man, he understands how things happen and what the process is to get them done. So on Tuesday, he did was he always does. He treaded lightly, tiptoeing around the Wright issue and shifting the debate to what has been propelling his ascendancy to the Presidency - Race, American hopes, and good old America guilt.

Thank You For Watching

Thank You for Smoking may possibly be the greatest movie a student of speech, rhetoric, and public address could ever watch….with the possible exceptions being Wag The Dog and of course Dude Where’s My Car. This movie teaches so much about the power of words and debate it’s down right scary.
Take the scene in which Nick talks to his son about never being wrong and uses the ice cream analogy. This is taken right out of debate 101. It’s not my job to prove I’m right but rather that your argument is flawed. The whole idea of dictating an argument’s direction no matter what the circumstance is an extremely powerful tool and is tediously practiced in debate, courtrooms, politics, and even when trying to convince a parent to loan you the car Saturday night. That what’s so great about this movie: it transcends the lobbyist/political world and can be used in nearly every situation of discussion imaginable.
Another interesting dynamic of the movie is the struggle that Nick faces in teaching his son his philosophies about spin and persuasion, which are not the same thing contrary to popular belief, without destroying the ethical building blocks of his son’s young, innocent life. It’s easy to say that Nick is just a liar but that wouldn’t be accurate. Anybody can just flat out lie but in the end they will probably be proven wrong. The character of Nick on the other hand simply brings arguments to the table. Now some might say, well they are stupid arguments and shouldn’t even be dignified with answers, but if this where the case, then why is it that he connects with the audience, both in the movie and the viewers of the movie? Why is it that every time Nick makes a case for Big Tobacco, which the majority of people today believe is an evil, money grubbing, merchant of death, do we find ourselves smiling and laughing a little bit? We should be outraged like William H. Macy’s character is, yet, we aren’t really. No, actually whether we like to admit it or not, we are actually quite impressed at the quick wit and oratory skills of Nick even though we are completely against everything he stands for.
Even in the end when Nick testifies in front of the national committee about the dangers of smoking he turns the argument into that the real danger in this country is cheese. Good God Man, are you serious? Yet this claim makes a valid point. So on the one hand, you want to strangle this corrupt jerk, but on the other hand you are sitting back and wondering how he comes up with this stuff, and this, my friends, is the million dollar question. Now you may be asking yourselves, wait, what am I learning from this movie? Is the only lesson here that the only winners in life are corrupt manipulators? Nice guys must always finish last while the tricksters and flatterers control the huddled masses to agree with their evil ways of deceit? The answer to this is of course not. I’m not Plato; I don’t believe that rhetoric is the tool of the deceiver and manipulator. It is simply a tool, and it is one all should be well versed in. You see just being on the “right side” isn’t good enough. First of all who is to say without a shadow of a doubt that they are completely and undoubtedly right? If you believe in something, then take a stand for it. Don’t just sit there and rely on the fact that you believe you’re right. This simply doesn’t cut it. You must fight with every tool at your disposal; your case deserves to be fought for. It’s not Nick fault that he is good at what he does, it’s the fault of ours that we couldn’t come up with better arguments. It is our fault that we allowed him to flaw our argument. It is our fault that we did not have a better understanding of debate, persuasion, and most of all the study of rhetoric in general. We must not simply write off what our enemy does as evil or nonsense. We must learn from them because even though we may not agree with somebody that doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from them.

Thank You for Smoking

SO I just finished watching Thank You For Smoking, and I must say it was a pretty awesome movie. My favorite part was "The beauty of argument is that if you argue the right way, you're never wrong."

Midterm Review

The midterm review is posted at St. John's Central. Bring a copy to class if you can.

Chapter 7 - by MirO

The chapter supposedly presents a new theory, but it actually repeats much of the ELM and the Heuristics-Systematic Model (HSM). The appealing to emotions is the same approach that is expressed in the appeal to peripheral processing. The whole chapter is actually an elaboration on the topic and while it is quite comprehensive, some things are repeated or overlap within the chapter itself. Packard’s and Maslow’s models of needs are very similar and after that the second premise (emotion) lists pride, which overlaps to some extent with the esteem and ego gratification needs.

As a whole, the chapter is very appealing because it explains the approach of marketing companies. In today’s world people are offered too many products and services and it is not only inconvenient, but somewhat impossible to logically process all those advertisements and make a decision. The chapter reveals some of the techniques used to persuade people, or as the authors of the textbook state it – the hot buttons. I think it is essential that people are well-informed about the subject of psychographics, so that they can better defend to advertisements that target a weak spot of theirs. It is like with illusionists and magic tricks. People are entertained and awed by the trick, so their attention is easily attracted. However, when the audience is told how the trick is done, it is no longer that effective, and people might still enjoy the performance/entertainment, but the awe would disappear, so the audience is not influenced to such a great extent.

I like very much a quote that I think reflects my way of thinking - “Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions.” I am a very rational individual and I am hardly influenced by advertisements that target the emotions. Yet, I have developed some brand loyalty and have certain images of some products/brands. That means that those marketing campaigns have had some success even with me. I am not saying that I fully control my emotions because I think it is very hard to achieve that. However, exactly one who gets close to such a state is a dangerous because that “hot button” is not there and it is much harder to persuade or manipulate this individual.

A Beacon of Hope

And it's not only Obama. Yet.

If you're feeling down about Professor Gowder's Law School Blows tirade, read this article. There is hope yet, my persuasive little goslings. :)

why you SHOULD GO TO LAW SCHOOL!!!!!!!!

REACTION TO “WHY YOU SHOULDN’T GO TO LAW SCHOOL”

This article by Paul Gowder was probably written to warn young students as I about the dangers of attending law school. At least that’s the view he wants his readers to think, but I sense a strong tone of animosity for someone who failed his dream of becoming a lawyer and was completely appalled on what law school is really about.
Not only did it seem like this article was written by a pissed off 12 year old kid who wanted to list a lot of excuses about something, but it was rather insulting to me as a reader for someone claiming they had all this experience they went through and speculate about how bad something might be for me. Maybe I like working long hours, reading stacks of paper, and playing psychological warfare games with my colleagues, as long as I get paid. You think this is the only profession people have difficulty in? What world are you living in? Sure, it’s a damn hard profession, and you have to work your ass off and come in top of your class, as you must do for any profession. Of course there will be risks, and debt, and maybe failure, but that’s the god damn name of the game; to challenge yourself. Gowder challenged himself, but obviously failed, which I guess I can feel bad about, but complaining and listing a bunch of reasons of why a particular profession is not worthy of trying is absolutely ludicrous and is just an entire excuse for Gowder’s failures. How juvenile is it go so out of your way to try to prove to people that this is a bad profession that you start listing divorce, suicide, and drug-use rates targeting lawyers?! I mean, is this how desperate this guy is to tell people how pissed off he is? I understand that he is trying to warn young students on double checking their decisions, but this is just straight out his own experience which Paul believes should apply to every student who aspires to go to law school. Look, most students who seriously have been considering going to law school are bright kids. They know the world is extremely competitive and it’s a very demanding career, but that doesn’t mean students should just give up just because it’s challenging. And I don’t know why, but it seems that Paul thinks that a career in law is the only hard and unworthy career. I can go on and on, typing pages and pages on negative views of almost any career, and most of them are just as challenging and demanding as a career in law, if not more.
So Mr. Paul Gowder, I say to you that after reading your article, you have in fact inspired me even more on becoming a (according to you because everything according to you MUST BE FACTUAL BECAUSE YOU SAID IT) slime ball, immoral, jerk, arrogant, petty, uninteresting, impatient, unhappy, divorced, druggie, alcoholic do-gooder corporate lawyer. And when I DO become a successful corporate lawyer, I will have done so without all those characteristics you mentioned, because it is possible to do just that, and I will be a living example of it, which will make you cringe to your stomach and may inspire you to write another stupid and ignorant article. But I will thank you anyway for trying to help me become a better student or even a better person, but I think I’ll pass and instead reach for the stars and achieve my dreams. Maybe one day I could give you some insight on how one can do that. One day.

READ THIS POST AND THE ARTICLE LINK

Because we are gonna talk about "Why You Shouldn't Go To Law School" on Monday, March 3.

Also, I hope you're having a marvelous Spring Break, my little chickadees. :)

yo pop check out cognitive dissonanceeeeeeee

LETTER TO DAD

Dear dad,

I’m writing you this letter because I feel I really need to explain to you the cognitive dissonance theory and how it affected me. You might not know what the hell I’m talking about at first but just stay with it and try to understand what I’m saying, and also keep an open mind. So the cognitive dissonance theory is a theory where one thinks something to be true and one knows something is true. It’s conflicting thoughts and beliefs that occur at the same time or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one's beliefs. Follow me so far? If not then just keep reading it until you do.
Now I’m going to tell you how this influenced my life. As you remember, a few years ago I was a very lazy and lethargic guy. I was not very active and was basically a couch potato. Then, I started changing my attitude towards my diet and becoming active again. I stopped eating junk food, and even my favorite foods like pizza (because of the cheese) and every type of fast foods. I also stopped using sugar and stopped consuming foods with high sugar in it. This helped me get in better shape in a short period of time, but then I felt it wasn’t enough. I enrolled at Gold’s Gym (by the way thanks for paying for it) and started a strict workout regiment. I am in very good shape today and trying to get in even better shape as I continue my regiments. Now going back to my definition of cognitive dissonance theory which I hope you were able to process, this example of my health and diet is a clear example of changing my behavior that resulted in changing my attitude. I started to expect more from myself. I didn’t like the fact I was completely out of shape and a total fat couch potato. So I challenged myself and raised my expectations, and I wanted to see if I could match them or even pass them. Not only did I excel my goals and expectations, I became a workout freak and follow my regiments very seriously. I even thought about becoming a part-time personal trainer because I felt like I could help a lot of people achieve their expectations with a little help from me because I know how hard it was to do this without much outside help.
Pop, there are things you can do to protect yourself from influences. The first thing to do is to recognize if your attitude is positive or negative. Now you’re probably thinking “define negative and positive”, but no, just use your COMMON SENSE. If you think the attitude is positive, then go with it and act on it. If you think it’s negative, then try to convince yourself that your attitude is going to hurt you and not help you in any way, so change your attitude a.s.a.p.
Ok pop, now that I did my best to explain to you what cognitive dissonance theory is and I hope you use it to your advantage and not to your disadvantage.

Cara's Wag Reaction

“War is show business that’s why we’re here!” These words spoken by the protagonist Conrad set the premise for Wag the Dog, a film epitomizing a simulated war all in the efforts to cover up a presidential scandal before the elections. The professional political spin-doctor Conrad and the unappreciated (but filthy rich) Hollywood producer Stanley team up to create a media fueled illusion that sways a nation. Conrad uses powerful rhetorical devices and conceives the plans for the ‘war’ whereas Stanley appeals to the visual senses and uses pathos to persuade the nation. This dream team not only persuades the American nation to reelect the fictional president, but the duo also gains the sympathy of the audience despite their blatantly corrupt plans.
“I just said that! There is no B-3 bomber. I don’t know how these rumors get started,” (Conrad). Conrad first decides to cover up the president’s scandal by creating a much bigger distraction for the American media. He puts the notion that there is some sort of terrorist threat by ironically denying the bomb’s existence. This tactical approach of using the modern American’s largest fear to distract turns into an entire war that does not exist. This is one example of Conrad’s scheme to create a conspiracy, which is uncannily similar to the methods used by Stalin to create a communist regime e.g. scare-tactics, biased reports, scapegoating, etc. Conrad is the rhetorical genius behind the plans and persuades even the CIA that the conspiracy is for the best.
Whilst Conrad is the true verbal politician, Stanley appeals to the visual senses through his production of the bogus war on Albanian terrorists. Stanley’s job is to know what audiences want and this is his biggest work because his audience is every American voter. “This is the greatest work I’ve ever done in my life—because it’s so honest,” (Stanley). This statement drips with irony. Stanley forgets the fine line he crossed in assisting to create this war. Stanley forgets they were not just creating an imaginary world, but indeed a true simulation of one. Stanley (and even the audience) are so caught up in this imaginary setting that the true affects of this ‘war’ are forgotten. Stanley’s lust for credit leads to his inevitable doom as he realizes this war is not just a game. Despite the horrible conspiracy created, the audience mourns the death of Stanley, which in itself is an example of how persuasive he is unintentionally.
This movie is clearly a satire on corrupt politics and conspiracy, but it raises an interesting question. As an audience, why do we always sympathize with the protagonist? In this instance Conrad and Stanley have us on the edges of our seats every time they get into a sticky situation. When the CIA pulls them over and Winifred (the woman who hired Conrad) starts panicking, we find ourselves panicking with her. This movie questions our conceptions of a ‘hero’, when our ‘heroes’ of the movie are stuck on the plane with their ‘war hero’ who turns out to be a nun-rapist. If “Three Little Pigs” or “Little Red Riding Hood” had instead the wolf as the protagonist we would find ourselves upset that those pigs tricked him into a pot, or that the wolf did not get to eat the tasty Little Red. Wag the Dog reminds us how easily we can be persuaded whether by the politicians, media, or even just the story of our protagonists.

Reaction to a Reaction: A Response to Sam C.’s Ch 3 Reaction

This reaction was well thought out and really was a great synopsis of the chapter. The one thing I found interesting was the way you broke down the differences between how Aristotle views rhetoric and Plato’s counter theory of rhetoric called dialectic. Now at first I thought you were trying to say Plato didn’t care about the truth, but as usual I jumped to conclusions early on, only to be proven of my ignorance later. In other words yay you, boo me (there are you happy now). The question I wanted to pose to you was which approach to rhetoric, do you agree with more. I find myself contemplating this very statement more and more for two reasons 1. It comes up often in the classes I’m currently taking (Dam speech/philosophy classes…as if I didn’t have enough to worry about) and 2. I’m a loser with way to much time to think about this stuff.

The reason I ask this is because I feel both sides make a strong case. As you said yourself Aristotle believes “The best thing a persuader can say to the audience is something that will bring happiness and speak against those that destroy happiness” I mean how can you argue with that? Happiness good, people who destroy happiness Bad. It’s so simple even a cave man could do it (P.S. If I see another one of those stupid Geico cave men commercials I’m going to hurt somebody. Not only is the commercial just stupid but now when I can’t figure out my car insurance claims I feel really dumb so thanks a lot Geico, really appreciate it…O and who the hell green lit the idea to make this commercial into a TV series I mean come on people….wait what was this thing about again… o yea Aristotle) So I dig the whole idea of rhetoric being the deliverer of happiness, but Plato makes a valid point as well. He makes a claim in his book the “Gorgious” that rhetoric is nothing more than mere flattery words made to infatuate the listeners. It holds no real value, and the truth is never learned. He talks about a true form of rhetoric though is kind of vague on the examples. He says that true rhetoric should be more informative as apposed to persuasive. That knowledge of truth will always win out over those skilled in the art of manipulation.

Actually the same argument came up yesterday during a debate, were the discussion branched of into the differences between US policy debate and British Parliamentary debate. It was said that policy debate was an interesting art form, but it really didn’t show how to arrive at a logical answer, but more so that my arguments are better than your arguments. It was even stated that this practice really just teaches people how to be master of manipulation and deception. In the Parliamentary style however, it not really about making your opponent look bad but rather who brings the strongest argument that can be discussed in length, equally by both sides. The thing is I really respect both aspects but I sometimes come into conflict with which is right and which one is wrong.

Perhaps there is no universal right and wrong here, maybe it’s all about context and the different situations that call for different methods. I mean maybe if Socrates was a little bit better at Aristotle’s style of rhetoric he wouldn’t have been sentenced to death after a jury of his peers persecuted him for his “Corrupting the mind of the youth”. Isn’t it funny how stupid we were back then to condemn a man for his belies in science and the search for truth. Thank God (the one true God, The God of Abraham, who sent is one and only true begotten son to save us and deliver us from our sins and lead us not into temptation one nation under God indivisible with liberty and just for all, and by all only legally born citizens of this great country the good old US of A, Amen) we don’t live in a time like that anymore. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Jesus!

chap 4 react.

This chapter is about social scientific approaches to persuasion. The first kinds of theories are dual-process theories. This is when two different modes of information processing operate in making decisions and judgments. The first theory is the Elaboration likelihood model which is a model of how attitudes are formed and changed. Second is the heuristic-systematic model and this is a shortcut to comprehensive treatment of judgment-related information. Lastly, the automatic activation of attitudes treats the mind as a place where vast amount of information is stored.
Hovland considered the variable-analytic approach to persuasion as a person’s need for motivation to process information that will change their existing attitudes and the actions that flow from them. There are source effects in this which is the source’s credibility and the source’s attractiveness to the receiver.
There are also alternatives to dual-process models. These are alternative approaches to persuasion that don’t fit within a dual-processing framework. Balance and cognitive consistency theory is when a person wants to balance or reduces stress or discomfort. Fritz Heider’s balance theory states that one person is connected or seen as being a unit with the object or third person. Balance happens if the two people like each other and have a positive or negative judgment of one another. Recent advances in persuasion have identified the importance of the mental processes of the brain. This is in accessibility and activation of attitudes. Recent studies have focused the importance of storage of information in memory, accessing that memory, and changing stored attitudes in the memory.
Overall, the importance of affect in the persuasive situation is gaining more respect from researchers. The problem is that this does not approach the mainstream ideas of persuasion today plus it’s not a complete consideration of the persuasion literature.

Chapter 3 Reaction

It is amazing that it’s been around 2300 years but Aristotle’s ideas and teachings still play a bug part of contemporary rhetorical studies. Aristotle saw that there isn’t just one approach to persuasion, but rather every situation depends on its context and the persuader must adapt differently to the different contexts. Aristotle proposed that the best thing a persuader can say to the audience is something that will bring happiness and speak against those that destroy happiness. Maxims is another popular technique used by Aristotle, and is still used today. I feel that a maxim or saying is effective because it is something that stands out therefore something that will remain in the audience’s memory.

In his book Rhetoric, Aristotle focused on what he called artistic proofs. He basically broke it down to three types of proof which I believe are very much relevant in our modern time. First is called ethos, which is an imagery the audience has of the speaker, particularly to body type, height, complexion, movements, clothing, grooming, and so on. The second is pathos, which describes emotions that come into play and to which the audience holds a connecting to. Evoking fear is a very powerful tool that falls under pathos. And finally, logos is what appeals to the intellect or rational side of humans.
In Plato’s dialogic approach, Plato is not so concerned with finding the truth, but instead states that truth is something we do not directly see, but rather truth is indirect images, glimpses, or shadows of the truth. He says absolute certain truths exist, but are obscured from our direct view.
According to Scott’s epistemic approach, truth is never certain, whether it’s concerned with science or public affairs. For him, truth is seen as moments in “human, creative processes” (p. 59).
Communication theorist Walter Fisher’s theories of rational world paradigm and narrative paradigm suggest that humans are “as much valuing as they are reasoning animals” (p. 60). The rational world paradigm basically states that rational individuals base their decisions on the quality of arguments and evidence. This I must agree with, because the higher the quality of evidence, the higher quality of the argument, and vice versa. Narrative paradigm suggests that human communication must be argumentative in form and evaluated in standards of formal logic. This then includes the theory of rational world paradigm.
In conclusion, I feel the general thing to say about persuasion, after reading this chapter, would be that people need to pay more attention to the topic of persuasion, particularly to the power struggle that is going on here. The greater attention should be paid to those smaller interest groups who are completely being ignored by the powerful ones.

My Reaction To Wag the Dog

Wag the Dog
The movie Wag the Dog was a story about the way in which a producer created a fictitious war with Albania in order to cover up a presidential sex scandal. The movie had a quote that stood out the most which stated to “never change your horse during midstream”. That basically meant to stick it out, in relevance to the movie it meant to re-elect the president. The movie made sure that it surrounded its theme (Wag the Dog) to show that we as people are easily manipulated by the media. In the beginning of the movie it was stated that a tail cannot wag a dog because the dog is smarter than the tail, but the movie proves that we are not in fact smarter than we think and that we have been outsmarted by our own tail. The biggest element that was conveyed by this movie was social proof; this took place when every one was throwing their shoe on either the gymnasium floor or in the tree. Everyone in the movie enjoyed having the idea of having a war hero even though no one knew who he actually was. What made this movie so significant is the fact that no one really questioned the war with Albania and everyone just went along with it and called it patriotism. The movie demonstrated that media and the people as a whole are in fact so easy to manipulate. The movie also showed that “liking” is an important factor when creating a story, because though everything looked like it was taking a bad turn they were able to flip it around and use it to there favor and just said it was “Producing”. i.e., when the convict was shot dead they were able to use it as a bonus, because they were able to bring back a solider that died while at war. In a way I felt that the movie was discussing the presidency of bill Clinton when they brought up the issue of a sex scandal. It also makes one think that the real reason we are at war with Iraq, could be to cover up a scandal, or could it have been just to win reelection.

Wag the Dog Reaction

Wag the Dog: great political movie that shows the true power of persuasion and how it can be used in a negative light or an un-clever name for a bestiality porno? You be the judge! If you selected choice number one you’re correct, good for you, your mom would be proud. If you selected choice number two you need serious psychiatric help and may God have mercy on your soul, but then again I’m not here to judge... (Sinner). Too preachy? Anyway, on with the reaction.

This is one of the rare cases in which a movie is made and the content serves as a major foreshadower for the real life future, kind of like a whole life imitating art sort of thing. If you haven’t seen the movie, which if you’re reading this you should have because you’re either a fellow classmate who also has this assignment, or are the professor who has given the assignment and is getting tired of me stalling with this intro so we’ll continue, the movie is about this master of “spin,” played by Robert Deniro, which devises a plan to stage a fake war in order to divert the public’s minds away from a recent sex scandal involving the president. The plan is to stage a war in the country of Albania because few people know enough about the country to question the clever ruse. Although this movie is cleverly disguised as a comedy, it really does have a much deeper, powerful, and rather dark message of how politics and the media can be used and how easily we as a nation can be misled, or in this case, downright lied to. This movie became extremely controversial because it was made shortly before the Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky fiasco happened, where at the same time “coincidently enough” the president had just gave orders on a three day bombing of Iraq.

This was a little creepy to see I must admit, but at the same time it’s not as if we can just look back on that as a scary time in politics where perhaps a real life “wag the dog” was taking place because things in the movie still to this day directly correlate with some of the current administration actions taken under G.W. Bush. For instance, the scare tactics of a war used in the movie to scare the public into a blind faith of their current president sounds a little familiar doesn’t it… by the way, it’s code blue tomorrow so make sure to pack your rations in you backpacks. How about when Bush miraculously found Saddam Hussein in that spider hole in the middle of no where right around the same time as his reelection? The creepiest part of the movie was Deniro’s character and his complete lack of respect for common ethics. If this isn’t proof that some type of ethical foundation needs to be used in teaching ethics then I don’t know what is. Canrad (Deniro) has a complete Sophist-esque outlook on life in that perception is reality. Throughout the movie, he keeps making reference to if you see it on TV it must be true. Clearly he doesn’t actually believe that but he does know that that’s what most people believe. If the newsman says something it must be true. It’s like the Nazis and the theory of the great lie. If you say a lie enough, people will not only believe it but possibly embrace it. Conrad is a true believer in the end justifies the means or as Plato once said “It doesn't matter how the fuck you get there as long as you get there.”(Insert smile face here) A great example of this is when at the end of the movie Conrad has Stanley killed out of fear he will go public with their fake war. Now I’m not sure if I’m reading too much into this but, in the final shot where Conrad looks at Stanley for the last time through the window, the American flag is reflected on the window around Conrad’s face and it seems transparent. Perhaps this was the director’s way of saying that perhaps this flag that we hold so dear as a symbol of freedom and honor has now been made transparent or without substance with actions like that of Conrad. Or maybe he thought it was just a really cool camera shot… who knows? All I can say is that I really enjoyed this movie and call me crazy, but this unknown Deniro kid, I think maybe just maybe he’s got a future in this movie business.

Wag the Dog, by MirO

Helloooo, "1984." As soon as I understood what "Wag the dog" is about, I thought of George Orwell's book. The movie started with the elaborate explanation of the joke about the dog and its tail - if the tail is smart enough, it will wag the dog instead of the other way around. The movie showed how two smart men can manipulate the whole nation. Their power to control all the media is a little far-fetched because such a big scam will have a leak from somewhere; for example - someone form the set where they shot the clip with the Albanian girl.

However, the idea is what important. Mass media is a very powerful tool and the image that the average man has is the key to unite the nation under one cause. History shows that too - Communist propaganda and Hitler's reign in Germany controlled the masses.

De Niro's character, Conrad, impressed me with his methods. First, the whole idea with getting nation's attention away from the sex scandal with a made-up war was brilliant. Even his assistants were asking him about the B-3 bomber - that's how persuasive he was. Second, the talk with the man from the CIA was another great example of rhetoric. Conrad went for the weak spot in CIA's position - he actually blamed them for not being able to find any evidence of terrorism, bombs, or preparations for war.

Another important point made by the movie was the power that Hollywood has. Although mass media reaches everybody in the country every day, Hollywood creates images and stereotypes that also affect the mindset of the people.

Finally, the movie also reminded about a piece of information that reached me in a way or another. During some of the wars, CNN actually artificially shot some of the footages that were supposed to be part of a report on one of the wars in Asia. The source where I read or watched that (I don't remember since it was a long time ago), pointed out that due to the lack of "action" at the war front, CNN made up such action just to have fresh material to show.

Who Wagged the Dog?

“Wag the Dog” is a movie about an ideology of rhetoric and how it affects its audience. First, the ideology is to take advantage of the audience’s trust. Almost everyone relies on the government and has some level of trust with them. This is a trust, but not as powerful as the impact the media has on people. This is the medium that is powerful enough to convince a large population of people of whatever they want them to believe. The rhetoric comes in play when two people, Conrad and Stanley, use their rhetorical skills with the power they are given, and use the medium of national media to orchestrate their own war. The audience, which is the general public, is going along with the whole thing, because the two things they trust and rely on, the government and the media, are working together with some powerful people to generate a series of events which are completely fictional.
The title of the movie is very interesting. It’s taken from the joke: Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail was smarter, the tail would wag the dog." This is the first sequence shown in the movie. There are many ways to interpret the title. First, the dog is public opinion, and the tail represents the media. Second, the dog is the media, and the tail is political campaigns, and thirdly the dog is the people, and the tail is the government. When considering the personal relations in the movie, the dog is the president and the tail represents his PR assistants, who immediately assume the authority for the damage control. Plus the expression "the tail wagging the dog" refers to any case where something of greater significance is driven by something lesser. The last sequence, when Stanley is taken away by the agents, I knew he was going to be killed, because he was the “something lesser” and Conrad was the “something greater”. I believe Conrad knew from the beginning that this was going to be the demise of Stanley, and he was the one wagging the entire time.

Second Persona Reaction

Although the article The Second Persona beats the phrase ‘cancer of communism’ to death, Edwin Black’s extensive analysis produces several interesting points. The Second Persona first discusses the idea of human bias in all forms of rhetoric even the most seemingly arbitrary. He also discusses the extreme difference between idiom and ideology. Finally, the most interesting point that he alludes to is the power of words and the psychology that accompanies rhetoric.
Black puts the ethics of rhetoric into perspective by stating that no human work goes without some bias. “Moral judgments, however balanced, however elaborately qualified, are nonetheless categorical. Once rendered, they shape decisively one’s relationship to the object judged,” (Black). Black defines the ‘second persona’ as the auditor and focuses his essay more on the ethical responsibility of the auditor because they must acknowledge the constant biases in the speaker.
Addressing the issue of personal bias, Black brings up his definition of ideology. He addresses the fact that any human concept and moral position on a certain subject can become their ideology and exemplifies this through the rhetoric used for school integration. “…if the auditor himself begins using the pejorative term, it will be a fallible sign that he has adopted not just a position on school integration, but an ideology,” (Black). Identifying certain beliefs as an ideology becomes in itself an ideology and bias. In his discourse, he craftily displays his own personal biases by identifying the biases in even such simple terms as “cancer of communism”.
Black argues that this term is not just an idiom, a stylistic expression with non-literal meaning, but a rightwing ideology. Through an extensive analysis of each word and word origin Black conveys that this term, which can many times be absorbed peripherally, actually involves an extensive centralized though-processes. Black brings to light the power of words in his “word psychology”, if you will. “…if psychiatry had a “line” of any kind on this symptom—such clinical information could be applicable in some way to those people who are affected by the communism-as-cancer metaphor,” (Black).
Black states that all rhetoric contains a bias and this is reflected in the ideology of the rhetorician, but it is also the duty of the auditor to identify this. “…the association between an idiom and an ideology is much more than a matter of arbitrary convention or inexplicable accident,” (Black). He encourages us not to take seemingly simple idioms for granted if we want to be a responsible auditor and truly exhibit a perceptive ‘second persona’.

Let's Talk about Violence

Watch these movie trailers, and think about the aesthetics of violence... What is the ethics of violent response? How do these two movies address different notion of appropriate responses? How might pretty persuasion like this shape our understanding or interpretation of the current war?

Stop Loss-a movie about US troops in (and out of) Iraq.


Defiance-a movie about Jewish/Russian refugees/warriors in WWII.

Second Persona by Edwin Black

Hey...

Question: Have you ever read something, and after you read it asked, "What the hell?"

Answer: Second Persona by Edwin Black takes the cake of boredom and confusion. The only piece of wisdom I got from this essay was when Black stated:

"Each one of us, after all, defines himself by what he believes and does. Few of us are born to grow into an identity that was incipiently structured before births. That was, centuries ago, the
way with men, but it certainly is not with us. The quest for identity is the modern pilgrimage. And we look to one another for hints as to whom we should become. Perhaps these reflections do not apply to everyone, but they do apply to the persuasible, and that makes them germane to rhetoric."

Will I be wrong if I say that each person in my class is a victim of "social proof"? How many us of look to someone for hints as to whom he/she should become? I will take a guess here and say that we all did. Every person (no matter how original you are) comes to a point where fitting in or following someone is the if and but of all things! It is natural...if we dont follow how do expect to lead?! Burke makes a point that since "some" follow...they are persuasible, thus vulnerable to rhetoric. But aren't we ALL vulnerable...to speakers with fancy words, people with good looks...its society. For Burke to conclude that it does not apply to everyone is naive. Everyone is has the ability to persusade and to be persuaded.

Cheating is in the Air

Check out this blog, written by a friend of mine. Look at the clip about cheating, and tell me there isn't something weird going on around here.

Welcome to the Thunderdome

Students of Persuasion.