This "stylistic" paragraph is an excerpt from from an essay I wrote last year called "Escaping the Skinner Box" that was a response to another essay. The "plain" paragraph is something I came up with to show the dichotomy. (I know I kind of did the exercise backwards, but I tend to write stylistically all the time because its easier for me to think in figures and tropes rather than just a plain style)
Plain- The fact remains that within a system a profound talent can easily elevate his or herself. Without surprise the system is not meant to be easily analyzed it banks on protecting itself. The responsibility of the talented and creative population is large because they are the ones who can change the path for the masses. It is not hard to conceive why it is for this reason that many of the creative talent become apathetic towards his or her environment and the seemingly unchangeable system.
Stylistic- The point nevertheless, remains that within the rules of a system profound and monumental talent can elevate easily, presumably because he can see outside of the system, he can see possibilities that those who are so intertwined with the system are oblivious to. This is not surprising though, the system isn’t meant to be transparent, the system is made to be deceiving and self-preservatory. The load on the shoulders of the profound talent is gargantuan because with his gift of sight he can see the flaws of the system and knows that they are inevitably recurring and that it is not until all bridges over troubled water have been burned and forgotten can there be any hope of a new more humane, more civilized, and less deceiving system can dig root and evolve. Cue the apathy; it’s not hard to see why the heart of humanity, the talent chooses to, instead of fighting the losing battle of changing the unchangeable system, in quiet anger manipulating the system to thrive at the expense of it and its minions respectively out of the resentment to its injustices.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
chap 10 rhetorical act 2
This is an excerpt from a an essay I wrote for a scholarship like a month ago, that I recently found out I was chosen for, regardless, I think that I use figures and the occasional trope unconsciously more than I thought. I know that I use a lot of appositives, long participial phrases, parallelism, and other things I don't even remember the name of but that's because I had this crazy ap english teacher in high school who pounded us with ridiculous amounts syntax and for some reason where none of the math stuck grammar just kind of did.
The question for the essay went something like: “What are your aspirations and goals?” These were some of my ideas I brainstormed before I wrote the paragraph and used some figures.
I want to learn and I am grateful for the opportunity I have to study at as diverse university as Colorado State University Pueblo.
The General Public does not have equal access to the law that the wealthy do.
With this knowledge and a college education I would serve pueblo by providing equal access to legal representation regardless of financial circumstances.
Paragraph:
In the next five years I see myself continuing my education. I want to learn; I am grateful for the opportunity I have now to study at such a diverse University as Colorado State University-Pueblo and would not trade it. However, I have long dreamed of attending Law school. Along with the world class education and critical thinking skills acquired in law school, much of my motivation to strive to attend law school resides in my basic feelings about the correlation between education and freedom. The General Public does not have equal access to the law that the wealthy do, we all know this. Through education an individual gains freedom. Freedom is the ability to identify and help change the injustices in a society. Therefore I believe that in today’s society there are few things that symbolize freedom on a more intimate level that having an extensive knowledge of the law. Motivated by this foundation and armed with a law school degree I would serve Pueblo by providing quality equal access to legal representation regardless of financial circumstances.
The question for the essay went something like: “What are your aspirations and goals?” These were some of my ideas I brainstormed before I wrote the paragraph and used some figures.
I want to learn and I am grateful for the opportunity I have to study at as diverse university as Colorado State University Pueblo.
The General Public does not have equal access to the law that the wealthy do.
With this knowledge and a college education I would serve pueblo by providing equal access to legal representation regardless of financial circumstances.
Paragraph:
In the next five years I see myself continuing my education. I want to learn; I am grateful for the opportunity I have now to study at such a diverse University as Colorado State University-Pueblo and would not trade it. However, I have long dreamed of attending Law school. Along with the world class education and critical thinking skills acquired in law school, much of my motivation to strive to attend law school resides in my basic feelings about the correlation between education and freedom. The General Public does not have equal access to the law that the wealthy do, we all know this. Through education an individual gains freedom. Freedom is the ability to identify and help change the injustices in a society. Therefore I believe that in today’s society there are few things that symbolize freedom on a more intimate level that having an extensive knowledge of the law. Motivated by this foundation and armed with a law school degree I would serve Pueblo by providing quality equal access to legal representation regardless of financial circumstances.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
rhet act 1 chap 9
Exordium- The future, not the past, dictates the present.
Narration- The sense of time, Kairos that the Ancient Greeks articulated not solely with regard to identifying the right opportunity to speak symbolized a unique sense of time completely independent of chronos. Chronos, the perception of time in which the “present,” the conception of now, directs sensory perception to only a biological being’s current position in space and time muting the senses to consciousness of the “past,” what happened a second ago, and the “future,” what will happen a second from now. Kairos on the other hand…
Partition- In a purely physical world where the biological variable is eliminated from the equation, quantum mechanics, the art of measuring, quantitatively, the action of subatomic particles, finds itself innately entangled with a highly complex conception of the time dimension referred to by the Ancient Greeks as Kairos.
Peroration- Perception of the present is efficient for humans in an evolutionary sense. Throughout the biological evolution of man one would expect that our Chrono-conception of time as opposed to a kairotic sense of time benefited the species greatly and has been inherently important to the survival and thriving of the species, through group hunting and gathering, and, in the development of agriculture, industry, and technology. The trend that has appeared is that man is at a faster and faster fate reaching these pinnacles of evolution. Take for example the number of years between the evolution from hunting and gathering to agriculture versus the rate of evolution observed in the short time between the industrial revolution and the successful firing of the Large Hadron Particle Collider in Geneva (that happened Tuesday by the way). Man is evolving at a faster and faster rate due to the immense speed and copia of information available. Therefore once evolution reaches a point where it is physically measured instantaneously the human conception of time will evolve along with it to an overall encompassing perception of the past present and future, kairos.
Narration- The sense of time, Kairos that the Ancient Greeks articulated not solely with regard to identifying the right opportunity to speak symbolized a unique sense of time completely independent of chronos. Chronos, the perception of time in which the “present,” the conception of now, directs sensory perception to only a biological being’s current position in space and time muting the senses to consciousness of the “past,” what happened a second ago, and the “future,” what will happen a second from now. Kairos on the other hand…
Partition- In a purely physical world where the biological variable is eliminated from the equation, quantum mechanics, the art of measuring, quantitatively, the action of subatomic particles, finds itself innately entangled with a highly complex conception of the time dimension referred to by the Ancient Greeks as Kairos.
Peroration- Perception of the present is efficient for humans in an evolutionary sense. Throughout the biological evolution of man one would expect that our Chrono-conception of time as opposed to a kairotic sense of time benefited the species greatly and has been inherently important to the survival and thriving of the species, through group hunting and gathering, and, in the development of agriculture, industry, and technology. The trend that has appeared is that man is at a faster and faster fate reaching these pinnacles of evolution. Take for example the number of years between the evolution from hunting and gathering to agriculture versus the rate of evolution observed in the short time between the industrial revolution and the successful firing of the Large Hadron Particle Collider in Geneva (that happened Tuesday by the way). Man is evolving at a faster and faster rate due to the immense speed and copia of information available. Therefore once evolution reaches a point where it is physically measured instantaneously the human conception of time will evolve along with it to an overall encompassing perception of the past present and future, kairos.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
intro to law prog part 2 and 3
Intro- The Colorado minimum wage laws remain a large crutch to the functioning of the state infrastructure by continually trapping Coloradoans from a low Socio-economic background in a vicious cycle of poverty.
Hostile Crowd- Although we live in meritocratic society where if one is intelligent and works hard enough they can vertically raise their status from poor to affluent, it must be recognized that life chances, including getting an education and getting out of low income neighborhoods for families in poverty is almost impossible on a minimum wage income of 7.25 in Colorado.
Constitutionality/Consistency- The distribution of income obviously favors the middle and upper class citizens in American and more and more do we see the concentration of income and wealth in these respective classes irrespective of the American ideology of equality. Today in America, equality is going to cost you and minimum wage can’t afford it.
Hostile Crowd- If America is truly the land of equality then the gap between the lower class income and middle and upper class income should not have the wide gap it does today. It is not only unfair to the families trying to survive and raise children on a 7.25 an hour salary but is respectively unfair to those who end up paying taxes to support these same families when they must go on welfare.
Justice- It is only just that the government passes legislation to begin to close the gap between the economic classes with the idea of reaching some version of economic equality. Raising the state minimum wage would be a first step in the right direction.
Hostile Crowd- In this economic recession we all must tighten our belts; we all know and understand this. However, we must also help to support our fellow Americans whether they are rich or poor, whether he or she owns a large business and now more than ever feels the pain of the recession, or the cashier working for minimum wage at a local grocery store trying to feed two elementary school aged children. We all must do our part.
Expediency- Now is not the time to debate whether there is a problem with the labor laws in not only Colorado but in the United States because while Republicans and Democrats at the Capital in Denver are debating whether or not there are really poverty stricken people living on the lower east side of Pueblo Colorado, there are mothers who cannot afford to buy enough food to feed her kids until her next pay check.
Hostile Crowd- We all are hurt by the malicious labor laws dictating unrealistic minimum wages in Colorado. If the working class cannot afford to live then how can they be expected to continue to work and contribute to the infrastructure keeping the institutions the middle and upper class depend on for their way of life. Raising the minimum wage will be an investment into the future of life as we have come to expect where around every corner there is some working class laborer behind that Starbucks counter making minimum wage brewing your coffee.
Practicability- It is only practical that the minimum wage be raised in Colorado, unless of course, the state is trying to somehow sit back and wait until the lower class fades away into poverty. Out of sight out of mind, right?
Hostile Crowd- Is it practical to raise the minimum wage in Colorado for the middle and upper class citizens? Many of whom bled sweat and tears to reach the prestigious status they have obtained in his or her life. The answer is logically, no. Raising the minimum wage would more likely than not have some negative repercussions to the taxes of the mentioned groups as government and businesses will have to find ways to rebalance their budgets to cater to new labor laws. However impractical it might be the real question lies in theoretical question, “Do all Americans deserve at least an opportunity join in the race for the pursuit of happiness through education and occupation?”
Conclusion- to truly be a country where one can come from rags and through individual talent rise in his or her life to riches, they playing field must be even. Raising the minimum wage in Colorado is the first step in achieving this goal.
Hostile Crowd- The notion of freedom and the American dream is the reason our families immigrated to this country and to deny the poor in America even the most minute chance to succeed by keeping them poor with minimum wages that are not sufficient enough to support ones basic needs is a tragic evolution of American Business ethics that needs to be corrected with policy immediately.
Hostile Crowd- Although we live in meritocratic society where if one is intelligent and works hard enough they can vertically raise their status from poor to affluent, it must be recognized that life chances, including getting an education and getting out of low income neighborhoods for families in poverty is almost impossible on a minimum wage income of 7.25 in Colorado.
Constitutionality/Consistency- The distribution of income obviously favors the middle and upper class citizens in American and more and more do we see the concentration of income and wealth in these respective classes irrespective of the American ideology of equality. Today in America, equality is going to cost you and minimum wage can’t afford it.
Hostile Crowd- If America is truly the land of equality then the gap between the lower class income and middle and upper class income should not have the wide gap it does today. It is not only unfair to the families trying to survive and raise children on a 7.25 an hour salary but is respectively unfair to those who end up paying taxes to support these same families when they must go on welfare.
Justice- It is only just that the government passes legislation to begin to close the gap between the economic classes with the idea of reaching some version of economic equality. Raising the state minimum wage would be a first step in the right direction.
Hostile Crowd- In this economic recession we all must tighten our belts; we all know and understand this. However, we must also help to support our fellow Americans whether they are rich or poor, whether he or she owns a large business and now more than ever feels the pain of the recession, or the cashier working for minimum wage at a local grocery store trying to feed two elementary school aged children. We all must do our part.
Expediency- Now is not the time to debate whether there is a problem with the labor laws in not only Colorado but in the United States because while Republicans and Democrats at the Capital in Denver are debating whether or not there are really poverty stricken people living on the lower east side of Pueblo Colorado, there are mothers who cannot afford to buy enough food to feed her kids until her next pay check.
Hostile Crowd- We all are hurt by the malicious labor laws dictating unrealistic minimum wages in Colorado. If the working class cannot afford to live then how can they be expected to continue to work and contribute to the infrastructure keeping the institutions the middle and upper class depend on for their way of life. Raising the minimum wage will be an investment into the future of life as we have come to expect where around every corner there is some working class laborer behind that Starbucks counter making minimum wage brewing your coffee.
Practicability- It is only practical that the minimum wage be raised in Colorado, unless of course, the state is trying to somehow sit back and wait until the lower class fades away into poverty. Out of sight out of mind, right?
Hostile Crowd- Is it practical to raise the minimum wage in Colorado for the middle and upper class citizens? Many of whom bled sweat and tears to reach the prestigious status they have obtained in his or her life. The answer is logically, no. Raising the minimum wage would more likely than not have some negative repercussions to the taxes of the mentioned groups as government and businesses will have to find ways to rebalance their budgets to cater to new labor laws. However impractical it might be the real question lies in theoretical question, “Do all Americans deserve at least an opportunity join in the race for the pursuit of happiness through education and occupation?”
Conclusion- to truly be a country where one can come from rags and through individual talent rise in his or her life to riches, they playing field must be even. Raising the minimum wage in Colorado is the first step in achieving this goal.
Hostile Crowd- The notion of freedom and the American dream is the reason our families immigrated to this country and to deny the poor in America even the most minute chance to succeed by keeping them poor with minimum wages that are not sufficient enough to support ones basic needs is a tragic evolution of American Business ethics that needs to be corrected with policy immediately.
intro to law prog
Introduction- the Supreme Court decision to allow cap less donations to congressional campaigns by corporate businesses is an insult to the checks and balance system of the United States. The very idea of this decision defended by those who define political donations as an extension of the first amendment, more specifically the freedom of political expression is trudging very dangerous waters. If this sort of judicial philosophy continues to resonate as the ethical guiding compass of the Supreme Court, the future for both the sovereignty of the nation and true representative democracy will be highly in question.
Constitutionality/consistency- Constitutionality, as we all know, is highly subjective to interpretation, interpretation guided by partisan politics rather than a veil of ignorance that defines and separates the American Justice system from other corrupt systems around the world. Allowing faceless corporations to donate large sums of money to congressional campaigns destroys the representative stratification of the common American citizen in elections.
Justice- A partisan justice system by definition is not only unjust but intolerable. The notion that political agendas, either liberal or conservative, conservative in this instance, furthermore big business conservative agenda, may be the deciding factor in senatorial elections is frightening to the power of the democratic voice in America.
Expediency- This decision is an issue that must be tended to immediately with either strong legislation or an amendment to the constitution overriding the Supreme Court’s decision. The main idea behind the decision of the court is that share holders in corporations deserve to have their voices heard in the election process, just like all Americans are entitled to; however, many of these corporations in question are multi-national corporations whose largest share holders are foreign. This means that some of the biggest campaign contributions in American elections could be coming from Chinese or Middle Eastern share holders who would in essence be buying American politicians. Now is the time to suffocate the flames of this misled decision before the sanctity of the sovereignty of the United States is put into jeopardy.
Practicability- It is not practical for the first amendment to be interpreted in such an ambiguous manner. By allowing interpretations of the constitution such as the recent Supreme Court decision to go uncontested will only open a can of worms where the constitution can be extrapolated in illogical manners to suit special interests.
Conclusion- To extrapolate ludicrous partisan interpretations of constitutional amendments from concrete ideas regarding the inalienateable freedoms of Americans like the Supreme Court decision to allow corporate companies to donate uncapped amounts of money to congressional elections under the first amendment is a tragedy for democracy.
Constitutionality/consistency- Constitutionality, as we all know, is highly subjective to interpretation, interpretation guided by partisan politics rather than a veil of ignorance that defines and separates the American Justice system from other corrupt systems around the world. Allowing faceless corporations to donate large sums of money to congressional campaigns destroys the representative stratification of the common American citizen in elections.
Justice- A partisan justice system by definition is not only unjust but intolerable. The notion that political agendas, either liberal or conservative, conservative in this instance, furthermore big business conservative agenda, may be the deciding factor in senatorial elections is frightening to the power of the democratic voice in America.
Expediency- This decision is an issue that must be tended to immediately with either strong legislation or an amendment to the constitution overriding the Supreme Court’s decision. The main idea behind the decision of the court is that share holders in corporations deserve to have their voices heard in the election process, just like all Americans are entitled to; however, many of these corporations in question are multi-national corporations whose largest share holders are foreign. This means that some of the biggest campaign contributions in American elections could be coming from Chinese or Middle Eastern share holders who would in essence be buying American politicians. Now is the time to suffocate the flames of this misled decision before the sanctity of the sovereignty of the United States is put into jeopardy.
Practicability- It is not practical for the first amendment to be interpreted in such an ambiguous manner. By allowing interpretations of the constitution such as the recent Supreme Court decision to go uncontested will only open a can of worms where the constitution can be extrapolated in illogical manners to suit special interests.
Conclusion- To extrapolate ludicrous partisan interpretations of constitutional amendments from concrete ideas regarding the inalienateable freedoms of Americans like the Supreme Court decision to allow corporate companies to donate uncapped amounts of money to congressional elections under the first amendment is a tragedy for democracy.
rhetorical act chap 8
Listening to the propositions being circulated in my community, I see extremely large amounts of date and testimony being used as proof in discourse. Furthermore, more and more, I see extrinsic evidence completely replacing intrinsic means of invention. Like the book asserts, people are shying away from using the proof found within the art of rhetoric. Consequently, this trend leads to the loss of the ability for the general public to be able engage in and interpret the rhetorical issues, of any extraction, anymore. I believe that both intrinsic invention and extrinsic testimony and date are necessary in rhetoric and communication in general. It appears that this trend might be attributed to the high speed of information transmission. There is no time for people to look deeply into the issues so they rely on testimony and date to form their opinions for them. Also, invention through intrinsic means is looked at as sophistry that is not to be trusted; neglecting the fact that being engaged in discussion is more times than not more important than being right. Looking at some of the works I have composed recently, it is apparent that I make a conscious effort to build arguments through intrinsic means of invention and only use date and testimony to further support my claims. To me it is a matter of ethics, I am extremely skeptical of the credibility of those who base arguments solely on extrinsic proofs. I think that it is too easy for extrinsic date to be manipulated to suit an interest group and be presented as undisputable fact. Extrinsic proofs, in my rhetoric, are used carefully, and more times than not, are simply used as supplementary support for intrinsic arguments and do not stand alone as indubitable proof.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
rhetorical act #2
Rhetorical activities #2
The term “war on terror” is an ameliorative term for terrorists that raise their rhetorical status from what they really are, criminals, to what they want us to think of them as, soldiers, furthermore soldiers of God.
1. The Rhetorical Situation
A town hall in Colorado Springs. The point for discussion: War on terrorism. Furthermore the repercussions of the terminology implemented since 9/11 regarding the “war on terror.”
2. Why is the Audience Hostile?
The audience is hostile for a number of reasons. First they are hostile as a community in close proximity to a large concentration of Military families who inherently disagree with anyone who questions the aspects of the war they may have friends and family serving in.
3. List emotional response to issue/situated ethos
- Anger- for perceived unpatriotic
- Fear- of terrorism should the war be abruptly ended
- Possibly hope/optimism?- should the audience be persuaded
4. List some pathetic proofs
- Calling the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq “war on terror” raises terrorists to the status of warrior from rightful status criminal
- Kids are recruited into terrorist organizations by propaganda (rhetoric) put out to romanticize notions of being soldiers of Allah. If we portray these terrorists to the world as criminals, they will lose their edge of prestige thereby facilitating the fall of these schools of thought.
The term “war on terror” is an ameliorative term for terrorists that raise their rhetorical status from what they really are, criminals, to what they want us to think of them as, soldiers, furthermore soldiers of God.
1. The Rhetorical Situation
A town hall in Colorado Springs. The point for discussion: War on terrorism. Furthermore the repercussions of the terminology implemented since 9/11 regarding the “war on terror.”
2. Why is the Audience Hostile?
The audience is hostile for a number of reasons. First they are hostile as a community in close proximity to a large concentration of Military families who inherently disagree with anyone who questions the aspects of the war they may have friends and family serving in.
3. List emotional response to issue/situated ethos
- Anger- for perceived unpatriotic
- Fear- of terrorism should the war be abruptly ended
- Possibly hope/optimism?- should the audience be persuaded
4. List some pathetic proofs
- Calling the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq “war on terror” raises terrorists to the status of warrior from rightful status criminal
- Kids are recruited into terrorist organizations by propaganda (rhetoric) put out to romanticize notions of being soldiers of Allah. If we portray these terrorists to the world as criminals, they will lose their edge of prestige thereby facilitating the fall of these schools of thought.
prog #1
Progymnasmata #1
Comparison
Advice for going to CSUP as opposed to CU for undergrad
Prologue- CSUP, although it is a small less selective college, is an extremely relaxed positive learning environment with amazing professors.
Prologue- CU, although it is an extremely large and highly selective college, is a top school in the nation and an invaluable learning environment full of respected academics.
Announcement of thing being praised- CSUP is a great place to get an undergrad degree especially for Colorado Natives who want to save for graduate school.
Announcement of thing being compared- CU is a world class institution that brings students from not only around the United States, but around the world to Colorado to study, offering and a great experience for an Coloradoan.
Origins- Being from Pueblo and going to smaller schools where teacher interaction is more active, the learning environment at CSUP is more appealing for my style of learning.
Origins- CU expects students to take learning much more into their own hands. Being one of thirty some odd thousand makes interactions with teachers and advisers less personal.
Education merits- CSUP is an upcoming university that has for years been Colorado’s best kept secret with regard to college opportunities in the state with a good selection of majors, small classes, and a CSU caliber education.
Education merits- CU, time after time is regarded as a top University in both the nation and the world.
Achievements- Motivated students with a high GPA are just as qualified for graduate school as students graduating from any other Colorado college.
Achievements- CU students who graduate with a high GPA will have experienced an extremely diverse campus culture that is an incredible experience.
Comparison- If an affordable laid back, yet high quality learning environment is what you are looking for out of you college experience, then CSUP is a good place to get a foot in the door for the future.
Comparison- CU Boulder, on one hand is far more expensive than CSUP, but worth every penny of the tuition. Yet on the other, even though Boulder is a gorgeous town and learning in such a prestigious university, having studied for a short time at a comparable university, I would have to say the environment at CSUP is more appealing to me.
Epilogue- The type of learning environment that appeals to me is the one exhibited by CSUP.
Epilogue- With the expensive tuition and impersonal learning environment CU would not be the right college for me.
Comparison
Advice for going to CSUP as opposed to CU for undergrad
Prologue- CSUP, although it is a small less selective college, is an extremely relaxed positive learning environment with amazing professors.
Prologue- CU, although it is an extremely large and highly selective college, is a top school in the nation and an invaluable learning environment full of respected academics.
Announcement of thing being praised- CSUP is a great place to get an undergrad degree especially for Colorado Natives who want to save for graduate school.
Announcement of thing being compared- CU is a world class institution that brings students from not only around the United States, but around the world to Colorado to study, offering and a great experience for an Coloradoan.
Origins- Being from Pueblo and going to smaller schools where teacher interaction is more active, the learning environment at CSUP is more appealing for my style of learning.
Origins- CU expects students to take learning much more into their own hands. Being one of thirty some odd thousand makes interactions with teachers and advisers less personal.
Education merits- CSUP is an upcoming university that has for years been Colorado’s best kept secret with regard to college opportunities in the state with a good selection of majors, small classes, and a CSU caliber education.
Education merits- CU, time after time is regarded as a top University in both the nation and the world.
Achievements- Motivated students with a high GPA are just as qualified for graduate school as students graduating from any other Colorado college.
Achievements- CU students who graduate with a high GPA will have experienced an extremely diverse campus culture that is an incredible experience.
Comparison- If an affordable laid back, yet high quality learning environment is what you are looking for out of you college experience, then CSUP is a good place to get a foot in the door for the future.
Comparison- CU Boulder, on one hand is far more expensive than CSUP, but worth every penny of the tuition. Yet on the other, even though Boulder is a gorgeous town and learning in such a prestigious university, having studied for a short time at a comparable university, I would have to say the environment at CSUP is more appealing to me.
Epilogue- The type of learning environment that appeals to me is the one exhibited by CSUP.
Epilogue- With the expensive tuition and impersonal learning environment CU would not be the right college for me.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
prog act
I misread the assignment and accidentally did the wrong assignment, I hope this will work, this was actually kind of funny to write.
Prologue: While the actions of an individual taken out of context can create distorted complexions of a person’s character, what remains indubitable in the essence of human nature is that oppressive and coercive tendencies in incidents of sexual harassment and other acts of a like nature are both unjustifiable and unforgivable in any situation. While the bitter reality remains more commonplace to hear of incidences of latter nature occurring in predominantly less educated and more chaotic and unstable settings such as such as low income neighborhood homes, to hear of highly educated individuals who are in positions of power and influence, like Politicians, taking part in acts of sexual harassment, exceeds the norm of taboo in society.
Announcement of the person being blamed: Senator Johnson mirrors the stereotype of the far right, evangelical, conservative politician. However, Johnson’s stand on Roe V. Wade or Don’t ask Don’t tell is not the topic for discussion today. Recently three male interns of Johnson have come forward and announced publically that Senator Johnson has made inappropriate sexual advances toward them on more than one occasion. The brave victims furnished the proper authorities with explicit identical emails sent from the Senator to all three individuals, prompting them to engage in sexual favors in return for recommendations.
consideration of origins: Senator Johnson’s colorful and diverse background lies in a strict, Aristotelian, east coast upbringing.
education and interests: Senator Johnson’s demeanor is that of a Businessman. Johnson spend the first four years of his higher education in New England. He later went on to receive his MBA at the University of Chicago Business school. “Lets talk numbers, no time for philosophy. ” His politics are grounded deeply in his ideals. With the glory God, and faith, anything in the United States is possible. United States is the only place in the world where a man with an ethic for hard work and faith can, freely, rise from a simple immigrant with nothing to a successful capitalist or an influential politician.
achievements: Senator Johnson’s list of achievements reads as follows, Graduated in the top half of his class at the University Of Chicago, somewhat success in east coast business ventures, inherited large sum of money from his parents “old plantation money,” that he effectively put to use in his Campaign for the United States Senate seat in his newly beloved state, Idaho.
Comparison: It is not inconceivable to fathom that a man of Senator Johnson’s stature may be disconnected to the problems and issues faced by lower and middle class citizens in the United states by virtue of his somewhat elite, conservative upbringing, however, this upbringing implies a certain responsibility to modeling to the masses a way of life that is admirable.
Epilogue: Sexual crimes of any persuasion are both archaic and inhumane, not only inherently but under the fundamental rules our our constitution that dictate the freedom and equality in which this country was built on. Senator Johnson violated all of these pinnacles of humanity using his position and power in a manner that not only disgraces him, but disgraces all of the hard work done by humanitarians and public servants to ensure that the United States is, and will remain the land of equality. And for these reasons Justice should be served in punishing Senator Johnson to the extent of the law for his crimes against humanity.
Prologue: While the actions of an individual taken out of context can create distorted complexions of a person’s character, what remains indubitable in the essence of human nature is that oppressive and coercive tendencies in incidents of sexual harassment and other acts of a like nature are both unjustifiable and unforgivable in any situation. While the bitter reality remains more commonplace to hear of incidences of latter nature occurring in predominantly less educated and more chaotic and unstable settings such as such as low income neighborhood homes, to hear of highly educated individuals who are in positions of power and influence, like Politicians, taking part in acts of sexual harassment, exceeds the norm of taboo in society.
Announcement of the person being blamed: Senator Johnson mirrors the stereotype of the far right, evangelical, conservative politician. However, Johnson’s stand on Roe V. Wade or Don’t ask Don’t tell is not the topic for discussion today. Recently three male interns of Johnson have come forward and announced publically that Senator Johnson has made inappropriate sexual advances toward them on more than one occasion. The brave victims furnished the proper authorities with explicit identical emails sent from the Senator to all three individuals, prompting them to engage in sexual favors in return for recommendations.
consideration of origins: Senator Johnson’s colorful and diverse background lies in a strict, Aristotelian, east coast upbringing.
education and interests: Senator Johnson’s demeanor is that of a Businessman. Johnson spend the first four years of his higher education in New England. He later went on to receive his MBA at the University of Chicago Business school. “Lets talk numbers, no time for philosophy. ” His politics are grounded deeply in his ideals. With the glory God, and faith, anything in the United States is possible. United States is the only place in the world where a man with an ethic for hard work and faith can, freely, rise from a simple immigrant with nothing to a successful capitalist or an influential politician.
achievements: Senator Johnson’s list of achievements reads as follows, Graduated in the top half of his class at the University Of Chicago, somewhat success in east coast business ventures, inherited large sum of money from his parents “old plantation money,” that he effectively put to use in his Campaign for the United States Senate seat in his newly beloved state, Idaho.
Comparison: It is not inconceivable to fathom that a man of Senator Johnson’s stature may be disconnected to the problems and issues faced by lower and middle class citizens in the United states by virtue of his somewhat elite, conservative upbringing, however, this upbringing implies a certain responsibility to modeling to the masses a way of life that is admirable.
Epilogue: Sexual crimes of any persuasion are both archaic and inhumane, not only inherently but under the fundamental rules our our constitution that dictate the freedom and equality in which this country was built on. Senator Johnson violated all of these pinnacles of humanity using his position and power in a manner that not only disgraces him, but disgraces all of the hard work done by humanitarians and public servants to ensure that the United States is, and will remain the land of equality. And for these reasons Justice should be served in punishing Senator Johnson to the extent of the law for his crimes against humanity.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
prog question 1
Prog #1
Commonplace exercise: someone who commits an act of terrorism.
Prologue- Since humans are entitled to freedom from fear, and since people from all backgrounds, from every spiritual circle, and from any ethnicity are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, it is inherently wrong to commit acts of terror.
Contrary- To fully understand the atrocity of terrorism and terrorist acts one must first put themselves in the shoes of a victim of terrorism. Imagine for a moment, the fear the families of the victims of 9/11 must feel about flying having been so closely associated with that terrorist act. The reach of the negative effects of terrorist acts like 9/11 or the Christmas hijack attempt transcends the initial event and inspire fear in the targeted group of the terrorists. Terrorism is warfare that not only targets taking human lives, but targets instilling fear into its enemies.
Exposition- Even though it is hard to believe that the United States is susceptible to acts of terrorism, in the larger world scope terrorism is a quite common occurrence. Acts of terrorism are sometimes confused with civil disobedience, but the two are nothing alike. Civil disobedience is a political statement, while terrorism is a malicious act against a group of people with the intention of surgically implanting fear in them and those like and around them. Such acts are intolerable.
Comparison- An anarchist defaces a national monument because he disagrees with the government; a terrorist blows up a government building because he hates the United States.
Intention- While it may be justified to attack another country under certain circumstances for political reasons, acts of terrorism and the people who commit acts of terrorism implement no reason into their violent acts. Also it may be justified in some cases to use intimidation tactics against sovereign states in issues such as nuclear proliferation, however terrorism is unbearable.
Digression- Anyone who insists on disturbing the peaceful existence of people by terrorizing the innocent is of evil nature. This nature of evil only emphasizes the cowardice of terrorists.
Rejection of Pity- You may be tempted to empathize with the initiative to facilitate social or societal change, however do not fall for this attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Choosing to commit an act of terrorism is an irreconcilable act any way the event is assessed and terrorists deserve no pity.
Legality- If it is truly a priority of government to protect the pursuit of well being of people in the United States more should be done to make sure America is protected from terrorists.
Justice- It is therefore just to commit terrorists to a court of law for appropriate punishment.
Advantage- The world would be better if steps were taken to further implement protective measures in the United States against terrorism as the guarantee of freedom from intimidation would be upheld.
Possibility- It would be impossible to round up all of the terrorists in the world and put them through the justice system, however it is both possible and essential that steps must constantly be taken to make sure that citizens of the United States are free from fear of terrorism.
Commonplace exercise: someone who commits an act of terrorism.
Prologue- Since humans are entitled to freedom from fear, and since people from all backgrounds, from every spiritual circle, and from any ethnicity are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, it is inherently wrong to commit acts of terror.
Contrary- To fully understand the atrocity of terrorism and terrorist acts one must first put themselves in the shoes of a victim of terrorism. Imagine for a moment, the fear the families of the victims of 9/11 must feel about flying having been so closely associated with that terrorist act. The reach of the negative effects of terrorist acts like 9/11 or the Christmas hijack attempt transcends the initial event and inspire fear in the targeted group of the terrorists. Terrorism is warfare that not only targets taking human lives, but targets instilling fear into its enemies.
Exposition- Even though it is hard to believe that the United States is susceptible to acts of terrorism, in the larger world scope terrorism is a quite common occurrence. Acts of terrorism are sometimes confused with civil disobedience, but the two are nothing alike. Civil disobedience is a political statement, while terrorism is a malicious act against a group of people with the intention of surgically implanting fear in them and those like and around them. Such acts are intolerable.
Comparison- An anarchist defaces a national monument because he disagrees with the government; a terrorist blows up a government building because he hates the United States.
Intention- While it may be justified to attack another country under certain circumstances for political reasons, acts of terrorism and the people who commit acts of terrorism implement no reason into their violent acts. Also it may be justified in some cases to use intimidation tactics against sovereign states in issues such as nuclear proliferation, however terrorism is unbearable.
Digression- Anyone who insists on disturbing the peaceful existence of people by terrorizing the innocent is of evil nature. This nature of evil only emphasizes the cowardice of terrorists.
Rejection of Pity- You may be tempted to empathize with the initiative to facilitate social or societal change, however do not fall for this attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Choosing to commit an act of terrorism is an irreconcilable act any way the event is assessed and terrorists deserve no pity.
Legality- If it is truly a priority of government to protect the pursuit of well being of people in the United States more should be done to make sure America is protected from terrorists.
Justice- It is therefore just to commit terrorists to a court of law for appropriate punishment.
Advantage- The world would be better if steps were taken to further implement protective measures in the United States against terrorism as the guarantee of freedom from intimidation would be upheld.
Possibility- It would be impossible to round up all of the terrorists in the world and put them through the justice system, however it is both possible and essential that steps must constantly be taken to make sure that citizens of the United States are free from fear of terrorism.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Progymnasmata 2
Question: Should the United States have passed the thirteenth amendment?
When I picked this question for this exercise I did not really think out how hard and touchy of a subject it would be to write a confirmation and refutation on the rightness or wrongness of the passing of the thirteenth amendment, it was just a famous event that came to mind. I decided to go ahead to try and do it though because it was a challenge. I did my best to look at it and articulate it from a totally logical “rhetorical” sense and I promise I was not trying to offend anyone :)
Confirmation:
Assertion to be confirmed: The United States was right to pass the thirteenth amendment.
Encomium: Passing of the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery is a victory for not only The United States but humanity.
Exposition of the situation: Slavery, a practice of involuntary servitude, was abolished under the Lincoln administration on December 6th, 1865 under the thirteenth amendment. At the time of the amendment’s ratification the post civil war Union was still exceedingly divided on the issue of slavery. With somewhat fleeting faith in the effectiveness of the emancipation proclamation the thirteenth amendment sealed into the constitution the abolishment of Slavery.
Certainty: It had been universally established by the earlier abolishment of slavery in countries like England and France that slavery was an inhumane practice not to be tolerated.
Credibility: A worldwide consensus that slavery should be abolished very quickly became commonplace around the world and only further prompted the necessity for action in the United States to do the same.
Possibility: It is quite possible that if the thirteenth amendment had not been passed that slavery would have remained after the Civil War.
Consistency: The passing of the thirteenth amendment was consistent with Lincoln’s promise to abolish slavery.
Propriety: In the scope of world occasion the abolishment of slavery was well timed.
Convenience: The abolishment of slavery liberated not only an oppressed group of people, but an entire African and American culture.
Refutation-
False assertion to be refuted: The United States was right to pass the thirteenth amendment.
Exposition of the situation: Slavery, a practice of involuntary servitude, was abolished under the Lincoln administration on December 6th, 1865 under the thirteenth amendment. At the time of the amendment’s ratification the post civil war Union was still exceedingly divided on the issue of slavery. With somewhat fleeting faith in the effectiveness of the emancipation proclamation the thirteenth amendment sealed into the constitution the abolishment of Slavery.
Uncertainty: It is not certain that the abolishing of slavery and the freeing of slaves was either economically or socially a sound decision.
Incredibility: It hard to believe that freeing slaves but withholding almost all of their rights could be considered progressive.
Impossibility: It is impossible to conceive not only the economic damage but the damage done to the social structure of the United States that occurred due to the Abolishment of Slavery.
Inconsistency: In the United States the abolishment of slavery that created an outcaste socioeconomic class in the United States can hardly be considered consistent with the American vision of equality.
Impropriety: The time between the abolishment of slavery and when African Americans were liberated of racist legislation and Jim Crow laws, was a highly misguided and inappropriate.
Inconvenience: The poor living conditions and quality of life for Africans Americans after the thirteenth Amendment was passed was highly inconvenient for a large minority in the United States at the time.
When I picked this question for this exercise I did not really think out how hard and touchy of a subject it would be to write a confirmation and refutation on the rightness or wrongness of the passing of the thirteenth amendment, it was just a famous event that came to mind. I decided to go ahead to try and do it though because it was a challenge. I did my best to look at it and articulate it from a totally logical “rhetorical” sense and I promise I was not trying to offend anyone :)
Confirmation:
Assertion to be confirmed: The United States was right to pass the thirteenth amendment.
Encomium: Passing of the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery is a victory for not only The United States but humanity.
Exposition of the situation: Slavery, a practice of involuntary servitude, was abolished under the Lincoln administration on December 6th, 1865 under the thirteenth amendment. At the time of the amendment’s ratification the post civil war Union was still exceedingly divided on the issue of slavery. With somewhat fleeting faith in the effectiveness of the emancipation proclamation the thirteenth amendment sealed into the constitution the abolishment of Slavery.
Certainty: It had been universally established by the earlier abolishment of slavery in countries like England and France that slavery was an inhumane practice not to be tolerated.
Credibility: A worldwide consensus that slavery should be abolished very quickly became commonplace around the world and only further prompted the necessity for action in the United States to do the same.
Possibility: It is quite possible that if the thirteenth amendment had not been passed that slavery would have remained after the Civil War.
Consistency: The passing of the thirteenth amendment was consistent with Lincoln’s promise to abolish slavery.
Propriety: In the scope of world occasion the abolishment of slavery was well timed.
Convenience: The abolishment of slavery liberated not only an oppressed group of people, but an entire African and American culture.
Refutation-
False assertion to be refuted: The United States was right to pass the thirteenth amendment.
Exposition of the situation: Slavery, a practice of involuntary servitude, was abolished under the Lincoln administration on December 6th, 1865 under the thirteenth amendment. At the time of the amendment’s ratification the post civil war Union was still exceedingly divided on the issue of slavery. With somewhat fleeting faith in the effectiveness of the emancipation proclamation the thirteenth amendment sealed into the constitution the abolishment of Slavery.
Uncertainty: It is not certain that the abolishing of slavery and the freeing of slaves was either economically or socially a sound decision.
Incredibility: It hard to believe that freeing slaves but withholding almost all of their rights could be considered progressive.
Impossibility: It is impossible to conceive not only the economic damage but the damage done to the social structure of the United States that occurred due to the Abolishment of Slavery.
Inconsistency: In the United States the abolishment of slavery that created an outcaste socioeconomic class in the United States can hardly be considered consistent with the American vision of equality.
Impropriety: The time between the abolishment of slavery and when African Americans were liberated of racist legislation and Jim Crow laws, was a highly misguided and inappropriate.
Inconvenience: The poor living conditions and quality of life for Africans Americans after the thirteenth Amendment was passed was highly inconvenient for a large minority in the United States at the time.
Rhetorical Activity 3
Rhetorical Activity 3
Tonight Barack Obama’s state of the union speech was a lot of things. As Americans have come to expect Obama’s rhetoric was impeccable, persuasive, and charismatic. It would appear however that the most compelling part of this speech was in the bravery it took for Obama to take on the whole room on the uncomfortable issues, especially those dealing with the internal affairs of Washington behind closed doors.
A New York Times editorial laid out some of the overarching themes and intentions of tonight’s State of the Union address. Americans have begun to feel uneasy and skeptical with regard to the future of crucial issues along with Obama’s competency as a president and ability to assert his will in a strong enough manner to actually facilitate some kind change that Americans can believe in. This New York Times editorial suggests that tonight’s address was a crucial focal point in the future of United State’s morale. Obama needed to spark a flame under his fellow Democrats tonight to stand up for the beliefs and promises that created and allowed for a congressional majority the Democrats have not been fortunate to have in the past couple decades. Attempting to dissect the rhetoric of Obama’s State of the Union Address in its entirety, after only one viewing, is a daunting task to say the least. So, for practical purposes I will only comment on three important and defining issues portrayed in Obama’s speech and also in the New York Times editorial.
Obama spent a significant amount of time building his argument touching briefly on all the noble causes and calls to action one would expect from an Obama speech. Obama proceeded to outline the one of the first big issues, the inability for coherent communications between democrats and republicans. The stasis of this assertion lies in conjecture. By crossing the aisle and acknowledging the reality of “fundamental differences in ideologies” between the democrats and republicans Obama attempts to open the flood gates for discourse. Obama effectively presented that lack of communication or consensus across party lines exists, and that it is a problem.
This problem is embodied in the next issue of leadership and Washington’s reputation for conducting merely in re-election politics. Stasis in this argument is found in definition, more specifically the definition of leadership. Obama asserts that the Republican’s new habit of killing democrat legislature by filibuster is not leadership but irresponsible and dangerous politics. Republicans must start leading instead of simply saying no to any idea presented by the Democrats. Obama however did not leave out the Democrat from blame for failure in productivity. Obama made clear the rare opportunity that is a congressional majority that Democrats seem eager to squander. Obama, in grave seriousness, called for leadership in his own party seemingly holding equal servings of responsibility for the inactivity of Washington Democrats who were elected to make change.
In the last issue being discussed Obama called out both sides of the aisle for their cynicism and lack of faith in colleagues across the table. In this issue the answer to the question of stasis resides in quality. Obviously the monster Washington politics has become is a bad thing, and, furthermore, detrimental to the functioning of the United States democracy.
The stand taken against the President’s speech tonight found life through brief apathetic commentary that does not desire to establish stasis of any form. Directly following the President, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal took the podium for the republican response. In the closing minutes of his address, Obama’s calls for leadership, bipartisanship, and a shift from cynicism rung in silence. By the tone and mood of Governor Jindal’s response it was hard to hear anything over his condescending and sarcastic depiction of Obama’s initiatives, leaving little hope for Obama’s fleeting dream of a Golden Age American government when politicians are not consumed by party lines, but consume their time serving the people.
Tonight Barack Obama’s state of the union speech was a lot of things. As Americans have come to expect Obama’s rhetoric was impeccable, persuasive, and charismatic. It would appear however that the most compelling part of this speech was in the bravery it took for Obama to take on the whole room on the uncomfortable issues, especially those dealing with the internal affairs of Washington behind closed doors.
A New York Times editorial laid out some of the overarching themes and intentions of tonight’s State of the Union address. Americans have begun to feel uneasy and skeptical with regard to the future of crucial issues along with Obama’s competency as a president and ability to assert his will in a strong enough manner to actually facilitate some kind change that Americans can believe in. This New York Times editorial suggests that tonight’s address was a crucial focal point in the future of United State’s morale. Obama needed to spark a flame under his fellow Democrats tonight to stand up for the beliefs and promises that created and allowed for a congressional majority the Democrats have not been fortunate to have in the past couple decades. Attempting to dissect the rhetoric of Obama’s State of the Union Address in its entirety, after only one viewing, is a daunting task to say the least. So, for practical purposes I will only comment on three important and defining issues portrayed in Obama’s speech and also in the New York Times editorial.
Obama spent a significant amount of time building his argument touching briefly on all the noble causes and calls to action one would expect from an Obama speech. Obama proceeded to outline the one of the first big issues, the inability for coherent communications between democrats and republicans. The stasis of this assertion lies in conjecture. By crossing the aisle and acknowledging the reality of “fundamental differences in ideologies” between the democrats and republicans Obama attempts to open the flood gates for discourse. Obama effectively presented that lack of communication or consensus across party lines exists, and that it is a problem.
This problem is embodied in the next issue of leadership and Washington’s reputation for conducting merely in re-election politics. Stasis in this argument is found in definition, more specifically the definition of leadership. Obama asserts that the Republican’s new habit of killing democrat legislature by filibuster is not leadership but irresponsible and dangerous politics. Republicans must start leading instead of simply saying no to any idea presented by the Democrats. Obama however did not leave out the Democrat from blame for failure in productivity. Obama made clear the rare opportunity that is a congressional majority that Democrats seem eager to squander. Obama, in grave seriousness, called for leadership in his own party seemingly holding equal servings of responsibility for the inactivity of Washington Democrats who were elected to make change.
In the last issue being discussed Obama called out both sides of the aisle for their cynicism and lack of faith in colleagues across the table. In this issue the answer to the question of stasis resides in quality. Obviously the monster Washington politics has become is a bad thing, and, furthermore, detrimental to the functioning of the United States democracy.
The stand taken against the President’s speech tonight found life through brief apathetic commentary that does not desire to establish stasis of any form. Directly following the President, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal took the podium for the republican response. In the closing minutes of his address, Obama’s calls for leadership, bipartisanship, and a shift from cynicism rung in silence. By the tone and mood of Governor Jindal’s response it was hard to hear anything over his condescending and sarcastic depiction of Obama’s initiatives, leaving little hope for Obama’s fleeting dream of a Golden Age American government when politicians are not consumed by party lines, but consume their time serving the people.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
rhet act #3
Rhetorical activities #3
The issue I am going to discuss here, very broadly, is health-care and some of the circulating viewpoints and arguments.
The proposed health-care plans are indeed extremely complex and full of medical jargon. However, it would appear that at the core of the debate the arguments are segmented into three battles being fought on completely different fronts. Medical lingo set aside the following are some of the points of discourse in the health-care debate
The Battle of Politics: Democrats vs. Republicans
R1. There is no problem with the current health-care system as it is
R2. Economically passing the democrat’s health care bill will only further damage the economy and put the United States deeper into debt.
R3. The Democrat’s health-care reform bill will destroy more jobs
D1. Health-care reform is not only necessary but crucial to the future of the United States.
D2. The United States will benefit greatly from health-care reform as a government regulated public option system is the first step to bringing an end to the malicious practices of insurance companies and in turn facilitating the reincarnation of the economy.
D3. Health-care reform will directly influence the job market in a positive way as the first step to a healthy job market is a healthy job force.
The Battle of Humanity: Lower Class vs. Insurance Companies
L1. Insurance companies make it almost impossible to get health insurance with a preexisting condition.
L2. Insurance companies are in the position to suddenly stop coverage in the event a person becomes ill or is in need of medical treatment.
L3. The bureaucracy that is “Big” Health Insurance makes it nearly impossible for the lower class to understand what they are purchasing or what kind of coverage they might be entitled to by government mandate for the sole purpose of profit.
I1. All of the necessary information required to make decisions regarding health insurance is readily available
I2. Government regulation of Health Insurance companies is unconstitutional in out free market/capitalistic country.
Battle of Capitalism: Middle Class vs. Upper Class
M1. For those in the lower middle class bracket with no government assistance due to income limits health insurance is nearly impossible to afford.
M2. Without adequate opportunity to have access respectable health-care, the middle class, the backbone of the economy, can hardly be expected to be able to be productive citizens for the economy and in the work force.
M3. Many hardworking families are either financially crippled or flat out unable to seek medical care due to high costs of health care
U1. Health-care reform will require those who already have coverage to pay more for the same coverage with the added government benefits.
U2. Extra costs for added government benefits are unconstitutional masked taxation.
U3. Those with jobs already pay into the welfare state in formal taxes.
The issue I am going to discuss here, very broadly, is health-care and some of the circulating viewpoints and arguments.
The proposed health-care plans are indeed extremely complex and full of medical jargon. However, it would appear that at the core of the debate the arguments are segmented into three battles being fought on completely different fronts. Medical lingo set aside the following are some of the points of discourse in the health-care debate
The Battle of Politics: Democrats vs. Republicans
R1. There is no problem with the current health-care system as it is
R2. Economically passing the democrat’s health care bill will only further damage the economy and put the United States deeper into debt.
R3. The Democrat’s health-care reform bill will destroy more jobs
D1. Health-care reform is not only necessary but crucial to the future of the United States.
D2. The United States will benefit greatly from health-care reform as a government regulated public option system is the first step to bringing an end to the malicious practices of insurance companies and in turn facilitating the reincarnation of the economy.
D3. Health-care reform will directly influence the job market in a positive way as the first step to a healthy job market is a healthy job force.
The Battle of Humanity: Lower Class vs. Insurance Companies
L1. Insurance companies make it almost impossible to get health insurance with a preexisting condition.
L2. Insurance companies are in the position to suddenly stop coverage in the event a person becomes ill or is in need of medical treatment.
L3. The bureaucracy that is “Big” Health Insurance makes it nearly impossible for the lower class to understand what they are purchasing or what kind of coverage they might be entitled to by government mandate for the sole purpose of profit.
I1. All of the necessary information required to make decisions regarding health insurance is readily available
I2. Government regulation of Health Insurance companies is unconstitutional in out free market/capitalistic country.
Battle of Capitalism: Middle Class vs. Upper Class
M1. For those in the lower middle class bracket with no government assistance due to income limits health insurance is nearly impossible to afford.
M2. Without adequate opportunity to have access respectable health-care, the middle class, the backbone of the economy, can hardly be expected to be able to be productive citizens for the economy and in the work force.
M3. Many hardworking families are either financially crippled or flat out unable to seek medical care due to high costs of health care
U1. Health-care reform will require those who already have coverage to pay more for the same coverage with the added government benefits.
U2. Extra costs for added government benefits are unconstitutional masked taxation.
U3. Those with jobs already pay into the welfare state in formal taxes.
Prog # 2
Progymnasmata #2
(encomium) Entropy as it would appear came into focus for one split second in time when out of the organic mind of Albert Einstein the theory of relativity was born. Below the surface of consciousness the world stood still for a second as the heavens marveled at notion that divinity had been one-upped by the human potential. The equation that changed in more ways than humanity can even begin to conceptualize. E=MC^2 meant a new beginning for the way the world was to be viewed. The vantage however cast by this brave new idea illuminated the necessity for humanity to reevaluate itself not only scientifically but philosophically, not solely politically but indeed metaphysically as man had discovered not only the secret to his everlasting existence, his elixir, his presumable God, but entangled respectively his means to extinction, his arsenic, his Lucifer.
(paraphrase) The key to ultimate creation and destruction lies in the simple equation E=MC^2, where “E” represents the units of energy, “M” represents the units of mass, and “C^2” represents the speed of light squared. The validity of this equation suggests that at the core of existence mass and energy are one and the same and are able to, in facilitated conditions, be physically transformed from one to the other.
(cause) The cause of this discovery along with its place and time are questions it would appear may be better to simply not ask as the best explanations offer man no catharsis and embody highly esoteric paradoxes. Was it out of fate or grace or sin or pure chaos that the splitting of the atom dawning in the atomic age occurred? These questions the philosophers of the future will ponder, argue, and criticize for generations. For contemporary purposes the point in which to focus is that there is no going back now and erasing this discovery in the name of humanity is out of the question. Responsibility for what man does with atomic power stands paramount to even the most gargantuan problems the world faced before Einstein’s discovery. Man, creating the means for his immortality and his extermination must evolve. If man evolves he will triumph.
(contrast) In contrast, however, history shows that man may not have been ready for the responsibility of controlling the power of the Atom. The morning the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima a rift that transcended time and space colored the story of man a more melancholy gray leaving in the static the faith of the masses, who stood still, waiting, hoping for signs of any conceivable form of biological altruism.
(comparison) Finally sensitized to the magnificent power of the building blocks of life modern civilization who engaged in, within a quarter of a century, two of the bloodiest and most brutal wars in history has since refrained from acting on international disputes in such an impulsive and reckless manner.
(example) The familiar saying of developmental psychologists that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” embodies the nostalgic consciousness of a post WWII civilization. The sudden resurgence of the will to humanity through peace and diplomacy reflects the evolution of not only the change in consciousness of the United States and those detrimentally affected in Japan, but a universal change of values apparent in international nuclear proliferation programs.
(testimony) There is no consolation for the lives lost in Japan due to the atomic bomb explosions in WWII. However to date there is no better case study to refer to when consulting the immense danger of technology implemented without philosophy stronger than the 1945 use of the Atomic Bomb.
(epilogue)Somewhere between being suspicious and daunted by the triumph and science of Einstein’s theory of relativity, whose simple equation E=MC^2 shook the arrow of time becoming the catalyst of creation, gives reason to remain faithful in Altruism as instinct.
(encomium) Entropy as it would appear came into focus for one split second in time when out of the organic mind of Albert Einstein the theory of relativity was born. Below the surface of consciousness the world stood still for a second as the heavens marveled at notion that divinity had been one-upped by the human potential. The equation that changed in more ways than humanity can even begin to conceptualize. E=MC^2 meant a new beginning for the way the world was to be viewed. The vantage however cast by this brave new idea illuminated the necessity for humanity to reevaluate itself not only scientifically but philosophically, not solely politically but indeed metaphysically as man had discovered not only the secret to his everlasting existence, his elixir, his presumable God, but entangled respectively his means to extinction, his arsenic, his Lucifer.
(paraphrase) The key to ultimate creation and destruction lies in the simple equation E=MC^2, where “E” represents the units of energy, “M” represents the units of mass, and “C^2” represents the speed of light squared. The validity of this equation suggests that at the core of existence mass and energy are one and the same and are able to, in facilitated conditions, be physically transformed from one to the other.
(cause) The cause of this discovery along with its place and time are questions it would appear may be better to simply not ask as the best explanations offer man no catharsis and embody highly esoteric paradoxes. Was it out of fate or grace or sin or pure chaos that the splitting of the atom dawning in the atomic age occurred? These questions the philosophers of the future will ponder, argue, and criticize for generations. For contemporary purposes the point in which to focus is that there is no going back now and erasing this discovery in the name of humanity is out of the question. Responsibility for what man does with atomic power stands paramount to even the most gargantuan problems the world faced before Einstein’s discovery. Man, creating the means for his immortality and his extermination must evolve. If man evolves he will triumph.
(contrast) In contrast, however, history shows that man may not have been ready for the responsibility of controlling the power of the Atom. The morning the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima a rift that transcended time and space colored the story of man a more melancholy gray leaving in the static the faith of the masses, who stood still, waiting, hoping for signs of any conceivable form of biological altruism.
(comparison) Finally sensitized to the magnificent power of the building blocks of life modern civilization who engaged in, within a quarter of a century, two of the bloodiest and most brutal wars in history has since refrained from acting on international disputes in such an impulsive and reckless manner.
(example) The familiar saying of developmental psychologists that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” embodies the nostalgic consciousness of a post WWII civilization. The sudden resurgence of the will to humanity through peace and diplomacy reflects the evolution of not only the change in consciousness of the United States and those detrimentally affected in Japan, but a universal change of values apparent in international nuclear proliferation programs.
(testimony) There is no consolation for the lives lost in Japan due to the atomic bomb explosions in WWII. However to date there is no better case study to refer to when consulting the immense danger of technology implemented without philosophy stronger than the 1945 use of the Atomic Bomb.
(epilogue)Somewhere between being suspicious and daunted by the triumph and science of Einstein’s theory of relativity, whose simple equation E=MC^2 shook the arrow of time becoming the catalyst of creation, gives reason to remain faithful in Altruism as instinct.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Intro to Matt
I'm Matt. I am a sophomore and an English major. I am from Pueblo but I did my my first semester of college at CSU in Ft. Collins. Needless to say that didn't work out. In Fort Collins I was a double major in Psych and Communication studies. I am looking forward to learning rhetoric and becoming a better writer and speaker as those are a couple of my favorite things to do even though I might appear to be a man of few words. As far as plans for what I am going to use my English degree for, I want to go to law school. I don't necessarily want to be a lawyer but I figure getting a law degree wouldn't be a bad way to start my life. As you might be able to tell I am a pretty easy going guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)