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.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
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)