Our group chose to mock Barack Obama's speech. He tries repeatedly to connect with the audience (mostly democrats but also a tv audience of republicans) by talking about all tthe different people who came out to vote. He talks about how this was the highest turnout in voter history. This logos fact also builds ethos showing that he really was elected by a large voter count. Obviously he thanked all of the people who had got him this far, as well as discuss the loss of McCain. This is more Ethos building. He discusses the pressing issues we face, and his plans against those (although vague plans) struggles.
Specifically he talks about our current financial crisis and our war. He gives us a good felling that he will handle these struggles absolutely. This again is Ethos building. He uses the word "change". This is an effective pathos building tactic. His we did it mentality and speech does much to draw him closer to the crowd(which is in love with him.)
Overall he did well rallying the spirits and saying his ideas. He builds ethos throughout and at the same time excites passion within his audience. Although he might make a few people mad he does a great job at attempting to include us all.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
kerry concession
He begins by congradulating the president and his wife, to seem like a good loser, and gain ethos for the future. He continues to adress the "healing" that he hope will happen soon. He repeats the words hope and vision to also grab pathos. He uses a metaphor of hugging everybody to connect with everybody and to get more pathos. He ensures us that he will continue to fight for his beliefs and stands. He chooses the path to stay strong democratic by using words like "our strong democratic party", and does not do much to say let us work together (compared to other concession speeches). He seems to give the feeling that he will still be a big force of power and others should not give up on him yet. He closes with a strong ethos grabbing "God Bless America!"
Monday, October 20, 2008
Finding some of dem sources
At first I was begining to get a bit discouraged when I found nothing on Lexis Nexis Congressional Publications, and Lexis Nexis Government Periodicals Index. I did find some stuff in Lexis Nexis Academic once I broadened my topic from Exxon/Mobil to oil. I found a bunch of good fact here but some were way over my head, and left me really lost. And I mean I had not the slightest idea what they were talking about.
I am still confused on what makes a primary resource primary.
I found ,Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, was the most helpful. It gave sources I knew were primary. It also was easy to find lots of information and facts once I used the control f trick.
I would like to use the adds but I think that it might be to hard. I think that unless I was talking about how oil is looked at in adds (which I am not) they would be to bias.
I am still confused on what makes a primary resource primary.
I found ,Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, was the most helpful. It gave sources I knew were primary. It also was easy to find lots of information and facts once I used the control f trick.
I would like to use the adds but I think that it might be to hard. I think that unless I was talking about how oil is looked at in adds (which I am not) they would be to bias.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
new topic narrow
My original topic would be to analyze McCains tax cuts. I narrowed down and decided to go with tax cuts for Oil companies. I then decided to cut down even more to narrow down on a specific oil company such as Exxon/Mobil.
Obviously this affects oil companies. It affects the candidates, and eventually it will affect us all. Where money goes always has a lasting effect on what we do as a nation and individually. I am curios what this does to gas prices. I think that there is more to this than meets the eye. Both candidates are talking about this. McCain is often criticized over this point. The media and the public wonder what he is doing here. I will get to the bottom of this!
Primary sources could include, the websites of the candidates, possibly the media, and hopefully some of our econ profs here on campus.
Obviously this affects oil companies. It affects the candidates, and eventually it will affect us all. Where money goes always has a lasting effect on what we do as a nation and individually. I am curios what this does to gas prices. I think that there is more to this than meets the eye. Both candidates are talking about this. McCain is often criticized over this point. The media and the public wonder what he is doing here. I will get to the bottom of this!
Primary sources could include, the websites of the candidates, possibly the media, and hopefully some of our econ profs here on campus.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Look at this humor!
http://www.cracked.com/article_16661_what-campaign-ads-would-look-like-if-voting-age-was.html
Please go to this site, you can't not laugh. The page shows around twenty ads for political campaign. They are fake, and stupid. They do show you just how childish these ads can get. I almost cried laughing at the jedi form of Obama. He really does look a little like Mace Windu (Samuel Jackson's character off of STAR WARS). I often do find myself thinking that political adds a bit ridiculous, but usually it just makes me angry. This pushes so far to make it funny. Allot of people actually admit (via comments) that they would be influenced by a few of the ads. So maybe it is us who is so mejavascript:void(0)ssed up to fall victim to these adds.
Please go to this site, you can't not laugh. The page shows around twenty ads for political campaign. They are fake, and stupid. They do show you just how childish these ads can get. I almost cried laughing at the jedi form of Obama. He really does look a little like Mace Windu (Samuel Jackson's character off of STAR WARS). I often do find myself thinking that political adds a bit ridiculous, but usually it just makes me angry. This pushes so far to make it funny. Allot of people actually admit (via comments) that they would be influenced by a few of the ads. So maybe it is us who is so mejavascript:void(0)ssed up to fall victim to these adds.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Why Obama’s Promise for More Jobs is a Stretch
Imagine a society where we all go to work for three to four hours a day, where all resources are publicly owned (minimizing wealth gaps between rich and poor to near nothing). Everybody remains wealthy and works to his or her own ability, and receives according to his or her need. Sounds like a beautiful society right? The flaw with this system is that it does not work. The Russians rode it until its collapse, the Chinese were forced to swap to a free market or face poverty along with all other nations who have attempted to give the Communist government
a chance. The idea sounds great but forgets to give incentive for hard work and producing a valuable good. Obama has said things that sound good, but as I will show you don’t make perfect sense. Admittedly Obama is not a communist or near it (most would argue), but he does promise things that are probably unreachable.
A high majority of us at TCU are from the middle class or above. And most of know how the steeper progressive income tax (that is charging higher income families a higher percent in taxes than the lower classes) that Obama proposes would hurt our parents. What most of us don’t know is that it will hurt the lower class as well. The increase in the taxes among the highest brackets forces many rich member of society to do one of following: quit working/retire, find a less demanding job or cut back in working. If this rich member of society employs people (who would probably be in a lower class than himself), they would either be fired (if he quits/retires) completely, or be reduced in hours or pay. The upper class creates jobs. It’s a fact. Taxing them more, results in them creating less. This is another fact. Obama claims to want to create many jobs for the lower class, but he openly supports a high increase in the upper class taxes. If you don’t believe me thus far, ask one of our brilliant economics teachers here on campus to explain it in more detail. And if that does not convince you, you may look at what has happened to those countries that have abandoned the progressive tax system (all income is charged a fixed percentage not based on income). As they got rid of high income taxes for the rich they also saw an increase in the countries overall production and (can it be?) employment. So far this means Obama has not convinced me that he will increase jobs, but let us look at another point he makes.
Obama says something that sounds like a brilliant idea (why have we not thought of this before, are we inhumane?), “We should raise the minimum wage!”. While on the surface this seems like a good idea let me show a bit why it has already happened (we may not be so inhumane after all.) Lets look at the effects of a minimum wage increase. Say I am employer at a taco hut. I have four employees and pay them all minimum wage (for simplicity sake lets just call that 5 dollars an hour), and I work each ten hours a week costing me (4 workers times ten hours times 5 dollars) two hundred dollars a week. Lets say that the ingredients cost me 50 dollars a week. So my total cost is 250 dollars a week, and lets say I am making 300 dollars a week (50 dollars profit). What if this minimum wage doubles? Now my workforce costs me 400 dollars (4 x $10, new doubled price x 10). I can’t afford to stay open at this wage because im only making 300 and my expenses are 450. I am either forced to shut down( loss in jobs) or higher few workers (or work them less hours) and make a smaller income. Either way that is a loss in hours worked. Again this point can be found in any entry level economics textbook. So yes maybe a few workers get more pay, but they might get less hours or have to see a buddy get let go. So yet again Obama supports a plan that would in fact create even less jobs.
Obama could have a great trick up his sleeve, something that we as a free market has never seen before. Maybe he is an economic genius and will show us a way to do these things and somehow increase employment at the same time. Maybe, but I doubt it. It is this authors opinion that Obama knows exactly what he is saying and just knows that if he can promise these things, he will get votes, because on the surface it makes great sense. Does this means that Obama is lying to us? Who knows? Another possibility is that maybe he just is unaware how these policies affect each other. But is it any better to have a president this ignorant on economic policy? The reason I showed communism is because on the surface it is so “nice”, much like how Obama’s plan seems “nice”.
Imagine a society where we all go to work for three to four hours a day, where all resources are publicly owned (minimizing wealth gaps between rich and poor to near nothing). Everybody remains wealthy and works to his or her own ability, and receives according to his or her need. Sounds like a beautiful society right? The flaw with this system is that it does not work. The Russians rode it until its collapse, the Chinese were forced to swap to a free market or face poverty along with all other nations who have attempted to give the Communist government
a chance. The idea sounds great but forgets to give incentive for hard work and producing a valuable good. Obama has said things that sound good, but as I will show you don’t make perfect sense. Admittedly Obama is not a communist or near it (most would argue), but he does promise things that are probably unreachable.
A high majority of us at TCU are from the middle class or above. And most of know how the steeper progressive income tax (that is charging higher income families a higher percent in taxes than the lower classes) that Obama proposes would hurt our parents. What most of us don’t know is that it will hurt the lower class as well. The increase in the taxes among the highest brackets forces many rich member of society to do one of following: quit working/retire, find a less demanding job or cut back in working. If this rich member of society employs people (who would probably be in a lower class than himself), they would either be fired (if he quits/retires) completely, or be reduced in hours or pay. The upper class creates jobs. It’s a fact. Taxing them more, results in them creating less. This is another fact. Obama claims to want to create many jobs for the lower class, but he openly supports a high increase in the upper class taxes. If you don’t believe me thus far, ask one of our brilliant economics teachers here on campus to explain it in more detail. And if that does not convince you, you may look at what has happened to those countries that have abandoned the progressive tax system (all income is charged a fixed percentage not based on income). As they got rid of high income taxes for the rich they also saw an increase in the countries overall production and (can it be?) employment. So far this means Obama has not convinced me that he will increase jobs, but let us look at another point he makes.
Obama says something that sounds like a brilliant idea (why have we not thought of this before, are we inhumane?), “We should raise the minimum wage!”. While on the surface this seems like a good idea let me show a bit why it has already happened (we may not be so inhumane after all.) Lets look at the effects of a minimum wage increase. Say I am employer at a taco hut. I have four employees and pay them all minimum wage (for simplicity sake lets just call that 5 dollars an hour), and I work each ten hours a week costing me (4 workers times ten hours times 5 dollars) two hundred dollars a week. Lets say that the ingredients cost me 50 dollars a week. So my total cost is 250 dollars a week, and lets say I am making 300 dollars a week (50 dollars profit). What if this minimum wage doubles? Now my workforce costs me 400 dollars (4 x $10, new doubled price x 10). I can’t afford to stay open at this wage because im only making 300 and my expenses are 450. I am either forced to shut down( loss in jobs) or higher few workers (or work them less hours) and make a smaller income. Either way that is a loss in hours worked. Again this point can be found in any entry level economics textbook. So yes maybe a few workers get more pay, but they might get less hours or have to see a buddy get let go. So yet again Obama supports a plan that would in fact create even less jobs.
Obama could have a great trick up his sleeve, something that we as a free market has never seen before. Maybe he is an economic genius and will show us a way to do these things and somehow increase employment at the same time. Maybe, but I doubt it. It is this authors opinion that Obama knows exactly what he is saying and just knows that if he can promise these things, he will get votes, because on the surface it makes great sense. Does this means that Obama is lying to us? Who knows? Another possibility is that maybe he just is unaware how these policies affect each other. But is it any better to have a president this ignorant on economic policy? The reason I showed communism is because on the surface it is so “nice”, much like how Obama’s plan seems “nice”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)