Our speech

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.

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!"

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.

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.

My Comic

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.

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”.

Arguement of Definition

For my article of definition I chose a piece out of the New York Times called "In Politics, "Let's Call a Lie a Lie... Finally." The main purpose is to inform how politicians are refraining from using the word lie and instead are using words like: misleading, deceit, and not candid. He sites how both parties are avoiding the dreaded L word and even shows how it has been replaced earlier than this campaign. It is and article of definition because it challenges the definition of a word against how others are using it. The author gives evidence to support his claim. He gets his point across. The author also shows what a lie can do to a candidate, despite them trying to avoid it. He also notes that they refrain even more from saying the L word in party nominee race.

For my op-ed piece I will be writing a little over the Economy. I will appeal to the TCU audience by putting it our Skiff. It will probably be titled "The only reason an economist should vote Obama.", but this could change. I think it will be a quick review of how economic systems work, and the obvious faults for each candidate.

Article of fact?

I chose an article from the Latimes titled "McCain-Palin crowd:23,000, or a third that size. The article first points out how reporters estimate the crowd size at these events The author of the article points out that the Police estimated the crowd to be 23,000 (a number the McCain campaign was happy to endorse). He also shows the other numbers people got. The fire marshal showed the number to be around 15,000 and one reporter even eye gauged the crowd to be as small as 8,000. The author urges people not to believe the numbers they are presented all the time because the official (police number) could be way off, which he believes it was in this case. The argument uses a topic to correct an error of fact. He gets research from other reporters and the fire marshal. He then formulated his hypothesis. It was hard to find much out of structure described. The numbers are not certain since no official number is that accurate so he estimated it to be lower than the projected value.

Economy vs. Letter

Real Life

Economy During the boom years of the Bush presidency — remember them? — economic growth was an especially unreliable indicator of how most Americans were doing.

The numbers were impressive, but the gains were lopsided, benefiting executives and investors far more than hourly workers and salaried employees. Because the growth was fueled by reckless lending and borrowing, it created an illusion of wealth even as many Americans lost ground.

The strange and painful disconnect was evident again in recent weeks.

The government reported that the economy grew at a surprising 3.3 percent in the second quarter, while productivity (the measure of how much workers accomplish per hour) soared. Unfortunately, those bounces did not mean a rebound in the lives of most Americans.

Growth rose, but so did unemployment. Productivity surged, but wages fell. Fixing that disconnect is the central economic challenge for the next president.

Increased exports were responsible for last spring’s strong economic growth numbers. But selling more abroad has not led to more manufacturing jobs or working-class pay raises at home.

One reason, as The Times’s Louis Uchitelle reported, is that manufactured goods accounted for an unusually low share of export gains in the first half of 2008, while commodities like corn and scrap metal accounted for an unusually high share. Worse yet, exports are likely to fall as the economies of Europe and Japan slow.

American consumers also helped drive recent growth, spending nearly $100 billion in government-provided stimulus payments. That was only a temporary lift. A true rebound cannot occur until the economy stabilizes. For that, oil prices have to settle at or below their recent levels; housing prices have to bottom out; and emerging economies, like China, have to avoid recession, thus propping up global growth.

Washington has little influence over those factors. But the government can try to stop things from getting much worse, helping to set the stage for a rebound. Congress will likely have to provide another round of stimulus — which should center on bolstered food stamps and grants to state and local governments. It may also have to provide more foreclosure relief.

That’s the easy part. Once the economy stabilizes, the creative and controversial work must begin to build an economy in which all Americans have a shot at sharing in the growth.

Senator Barack Obama has addressed the issue conceptually, rejecting the “you’re on your own” ethos of the Bush years. He has put forth prescriptions, including specific plans to create jobs with public-works investments, and he supports legislation that would make it easier for employees to form unions.

It’s well established that public-works spending yields a big economic bang for every buck and that unions lead to better pay. The politics are difficult. First, Americans must agree that government has a useful role to play in the economy, a notion that has been disparaged for decades. Big employers with powerful friends on Capitol Hill — Wal-Mart comes immediately to mind — can be expected to fight any attempts to foster unions.

Senator John McCain has also pledged to address the struggles of working Americans. Both candidates say their energy plans will create jobs. But Mr. McCain emphasizes more high-end tax cuts as the main engine for new jobs. Tax cuts are always politically popular. As job generators, however, they are a loser strategy, especially now. The Bush era, with its huge tax cuts, has the worst job-creation record of any post-World War II economic cycle.

America needs more jobs and American workers need a raise. Mr. Obama should sharpen his promising ideas. Mr. McCain has yet to address the real economy’s real problems head on.

Letter to the Editor for “Real Life Economy”

I found that it was very difficult for me to agree with anything said by the author, but for the purpose of trying to be constructive, objective, and encouraging I struggled to find a few points I liked. The author explains many facts that should be known to all Americans. S/He (I could not find the name of the author) tells us that although our economy is growing along with productivity, much of this gain is felt by the rich and hardly felt at all by the lower classes. He reports how unemployment has actually increased, despite the economic growth. He tells us about the fall in wage. His main point is to encourage the next president to fix these disconnects.

On the surface, all his points seem clear and obvious. He is attempting to use logos with all the facts used, and logical conclusions. To an economically ignorant reader (which most of us are) his arguments are effective and persuasive. He appeals to the part of us that wants everything to be “fair”. This is undoubtedly a hook to intrigue those readers that are feeling they are being paid/working unfairly. He is relating to all those looking for a change and rise in the middle class.

Despite his appeal to logic and facts, he takes facts out of context, and leaves out important details. He notes how unemployment has risen. Unemployment did rise, but this is sometimes a natural thing. Frictional unemployment is defined as being between jobs, and structural unemployment is defined as lacking new skills required for jobs. Both of these are not bad things. Between these two forms 4 percent of the unemployment lies. This is good unemployment. Cyclical makes up the bad part of unemployment, the part we can and want to prevent. It is estimated that this portion of unemployment remains low. Therefore either this author knows this about unemployment and is misleading the reader or s/he is unaware and therefore unfit to tell us how to think. The author also says things like how he wants to create more jobs and raise wages. These two things contradict each other. Entry level economics books teach you how increases in wages discourage employers from hiring more workers. That is common sense. If you have to pay your employees more, you can’t afford to hire as many. That is simple.

He explains how Obama is attempting to keep all the jobs in America (I guess this means putting tariffs on imports.) Again this looks good initially but as you look deeper it loses its strength. While increasing taxes on imports helps to sell American goods in America, it hurts all of those American manufactures who now are forced to buy expensive part over the cheaper foreign parts. The most open example of how this goes bad is our protected sugar industry. Our current sugar industry was inferior and less productive than the global competition so America (or more like the Sugar Lobbyists) set laws to increase taxes on foreign sugar “To Protect American Jobs”. While this seems great, let’s look at what happened. Sugar has nearly become extinct in America. Every Soda we drink now is made with the infamous and less tasty “high fructose corn syrup”. The companies could not afford to pay the taxes for foreign sugar, and the home prices were too high (due to not great production techniques), so they chose a cheaper (less tasty) alternative in the corn syrup. So while we protect a handful of American jobs (people who would most likely find jobs somewhere else), all Americans have to pay more for their sweets and not get to taste the same product we should have. The cost outweighs the benefits if you look at America as a whole. By the way, most sugar growers are upper class (bugs you that we are protecting them huh?)

The author makes some good points but loses ethos from those who see his lack of details and context. He gives great facts but leaves out what makes them strange.

Sureal Life Economy

For my topic, I chose economics and found an article titled "Real Life Economy" out of the New York Times. The article more or less describes the economic struggles of the country and how the author would change them. He goes over each candidates plan (glorifying Obama's, while over simplifying and chastising McCain's). He talks about how unemployment has gone up, although gdp is rising, some families are still hurt. He talks allot about how strongly he feels that salaries should be raised for the middle class, and taxes should be increased on the rich. He adds that he would like to increase the value of food stamps, and government handouts (obviosly I am against his plan). He supports Obama's plan, saying that he truly "cares" for the lower class (as if McCain does not) and is for middle class.

I chose this article because it infuriates me. I just know he is affecting hundreds, maybe thousands of votes through this article and it is so ignorant. I honestly am holding myself back from driving to New York and hitting this guy with a high school economics book. It takes one economics class to realise so many of the mistakes this guy is making. I will discuss all of his errors fully in my, hopefully not to long, letter to the editor. It really will be hard to keep it under five hundred words. I am really furios. I have never fallen in the upper class or even upper middle class, and I am openly against Obama's "Middle class economics". Hopefully those that read my letter to the editor will see his faults.

p.s. Sorry if I have offended anybody, Obama is a great guy, and has many great qualities but here (on his most important issue) he is most wrong.

Most Important issues.

To me the most important issues a candidate can gain or lose ground with me is in the fields of economics and military/war policies. The presidents have always had influence in these areas. Under most democratic presidents the upper tax bracket has been heavily taxed, while reducing taxes for the lower brackets. Republicans , on the other hand, often do just the opposite, cut taxes for highest bracket.

Not cutting this bracket is a big mistake by those who don't do it (mostly democrats, but oddly a few republicans). The bigger the tax in the upper bracket the more the rich are inclined to stop working, work less, find a less financial career. All of these options result in loss of jobs for the lower class. The rich are the most flexible, and most elastic to taxes. Increasing their taxes has often resulted in a decrease in overall tax revenue; with this being on top of all the dead weight loss. Although it seems like the unjust thing to do you must vote for candidates that don't destroy the upper tax bracket. There is evidence in just about every economics course/ public finance course to support this.

Now, without saying hey now Craig, I know our current President is a republican, and his term has not yielded the prosperity I am demanding. I accredit this to his major flaw. War spending. War is a very costly endeavor. Although he keeps taxes low, Bush borrows more and more money to support his never ending war. I can understand his reasons for going in, however, we should have left the second Saddam was disposed of in my opinion. No way could the consequences of pulling out early be greater than the economic pain we all are facing everyday.

Both of these areas I feel, as a citizen. I don't feel how the president feels about abortion, or how he thinks gay marriage should exist. Those things don't affect us all nearly as much as these two areas. That is why they are my two most important.

Logos Argument

For my logos article, I chose an article off of Espn.com "Finally healthy, Lion's Johnson poised for a monster season" by Kevin Seifert. The article describes how Calvin Johnson (a wide receiver for the less than great Detroit Lions) is due for a good year. The author use logos often when restating his previous years stats compared to other rookie stats. He also explains that logically he should have a better year, because he is much more healthy than he was last season after his back injury which slowed him down just enough to fail to reach stardom. Seifert displays fact that in his first few games (where CJ is uninjured), he performed at a pro bowl level. The article also uses ethos when it uses opinions of accredited people, and pathos when Seifert reveals the character of CJ, but he uses logos the most with all the facts, and theory s he presents.
After reading this article I will undoubtedly pay more attention to Calvin this season (which will be difficult to bear due to his awful team), and I might even find myself rooting for him. The article has convinced me that he truly will emerge as a great , maybe even the best, wide receiver this year, and keep it up for years to come.
I would like to add that I will never root for him against the Cowboys.

example of pathos

For my pathos argument, I chose to explore "Cutler ready to emerge as star for Broncos" off espn.com by Bill Williamson. The article aims to get the reader stirred up about Jay Cutler, the starting quarterback. It uses pathos when describing how he battles with severe diabetes. By adding this fact the reader sympathizes and wishes the best for the young man, similar to the movie "Rudy". I felt emotions like hope, and sadness. The article continues by explaining his positive qualities, which should lead to success. It also gives some other players comments on the players, which also evoke positive emotions. You get the feeling that he is a team oriented player, and he possesses great sportsmanship. These implications make the pathos part of the argument even stronger. It has a bit of an ethos argument, because Williamson is an undoubtedly accredited sports analyst. He knows what he is talking about and he makes a solid case.

The argument that Jay Cutler will emerge as a star, is supported by stats, projections, and most of all hope.

Lets go Jay Cutler!

Introduction

Greetings, my name Craig Harris Kocay (the first). I am a junior here at TCU, but my graduation date is uncertain. Today I plan to major in economics with a mathematics minor, however, I have already changed my mind four times over the past two years so nothing is set in stone. This is driving my parents insane. I played soccer, ran track, and was class president in high school, yet my favorite accomplishments (outside of school of coarse) come from my video game achievements.
I chose to take this writing coarse honestly because of the requirements. I am excited though, to see how I can progress as a writer (as I am sure no matter my career it will involve writing), and to write with more professionalism. It would also be nice to discover more about the candidates of this year, while learning campaign strategies, because someday I might end up exploring a career in politics.
I do most of my writing via text messages to my girlfriend against my will. However from time to time I get bored and end up writing sports arguments on a website owned by Sports Illustrated. My writing is probably not God's gift to men and women, but I don't despise it either. To me, my writing almost always seems casual and conversational rather than formal (which I am hoping to change through this class).
Politics is a great passion of mine. I could argue for hours and hours about current, past, and future presidents. I considered running for city council for my hometown, after discovering it only takes about three thousand votes to secure a spot. I am concerned with all levels of politics, and I am mostly interested in the economic decisions of each candidate. By the way, I love Ron Paul.
My argument shown throughout my blog, is that I can't take life to seriously. I honestly don't remember the background this blog will show up on; probably because I took fifteen seconds to pick it out. I am for displaying facts, results, and objectivity rather than art, morals, and subjectivity. I argue that those things can be found on your own, not through the beliefs of others. I don't find that this shows a lack of concern but rather stresses the importance on the worthy points. I feel it is great to be open minded and explore all the world has to offer, and laugh as much as possible along the way.

I have read and I understand the class syllabus. I accept the terms with all my heart.

The opinions expressed on this blog do not represent those of Texas Christian University or of its administration.