Big Changes

by Jacob Rodesh

For your RCL Blog, discuss how your conception of “rhetoric and civic life” changed over the semester.

Walking into this class, I knew the mechanical definitions of both important concepts. I knew that rhetoric meant a means of persuasion with words and other communication, and that civic life was how people interacted with the broader society around them.

I’ve since learned all of rhetoric’s intricacies; the art of rhetoric takes form in almost all communication, since all communication, generally speaking, has a goal of transferring  information. I now consider civic life to be the culmination of all the rhetorical strategies that humans use to communicate. I enjoyed incorporating technology with communication and those strategies having to compliment each other.

Having been exposed to a plethora of rhetorical civic artifacts and paradigm shifts between my peers, my consciousness of those changes have been ingrained in my head. I am now more influenced by the hidden strategies of politicians, which was originally a goal of mine entering this class. I can analyze what appeals and speaking techniques that my hobby must employ.

TED Talk Outline: Pulling a Switcharoo

by Jacob Rodesh

******************I’ve actually decided to switch topics because I’ve found limited fringe research on agnosticism but plenty of research on workplace traditions and government allowances for paid time off. I switched topics early this morning as I was working on the outline for the other subject because it didn’t go deep enough.

THIS IS G O I N G TO BE UPDATED AS I FINISH IT

  1. How overworked do you all feel? Does anyone in here currently have a job? Well, it could all be much worse, but luckily things have changed. Hours used to be long, arduous.

Progressive advocates worked tirelessly (ironic) to gain the support needed to pass laws that regulate the hours that employers demand from laborers.

“We need nuclear power to stop climate change,” What I enjoyed from Joe Lassiter’s TED Talk

by Jacob Rodesh

For the TED assignment, I chose a talk by Joe Lassiter entitled “We need nuclear power to solve climate change.”

In summary, he discussed the growing need for more reliable energy sources for the developing world, but also talked about the impact on the progression of climate change that such development would have, and how those two need to be reconciled.

I liked the comparison between the benefits of lifting people out of poverty and in the developed world but also the drawbacks of even more people contributing even that much more to climate change. This theme is both a good setup for the rest of the talk but also something that we know to be factually true.

Lassiter discusses how the Paris Accords are nowhere near enough to reverse what’s already been happening to our planet, as most of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions is going to come from developing countries; the path they choose is going to determine how much pollution they emit.

New power solutions have to pass the “Chindia” test, meaning that nations like China and India must be willing to accept it; and, subsequently, most other developing nations will as well. Nations have to have the choice to switch, as well as good economic motivation. I liked this framing because, while I am an advocate for switching to clean nuclear energy and renewables, there is still an economic angle that shouldn’t be overlooked. No matter how much of a tree hugger I am, I can’t ignore the fact that world governments won’t overlook the economic impact of switching to a completely new system of obtaining energy for their people.

I also enjoyed how he wrapped up his presentation at the end by advocating the changing of the stigma away from nuclear power and how that stigma had grown to be so prevalent in the Cold War and after the public opinion on it dwindled after the major accidents that we know so well. He talks about “new nuclear” with different materials and the fact that new materials exist that are much more controllable and cleaner than those in the past.

Unit II Brainstorming: How Much Discrimination Can I Analyze in Ten Pages?

by Jacob Rodesh

As a start, I’ll mention some ideas that are more widely known and discussed in society, then I’ll mention my ideal topic.

I can discuss the massive shift from neutral attitudes to hostile and genocidal behaviors towards Jews in Nazi Germany, and how the few leaders in the Nazi party managed to convince most of an entire country to unite around the elimination of a ‘race’ of people (among other things). If that idea seems too mainstream and well-known to be interesting, I can discuss the simmering-down of antisemitism in post-World War Two Germany; how the toppled Reich stabilized their economy and religious identities with the support of U.S. funding in the Marshall plan, and how the presence of democracy in West Germany influenced beliefs. In either scenario, I can touch on the prevalence of genuine belief in the Final Solution among different social and economic classes to break down the belief holder’s possible motives.

I brainstormed another idea that is more politically relevant to modern times: rape culture. I can discuss rape culture and the victim-blaming, victimization of the rapist, the socioeconomic disparities in criminal cases, etc.

Finally, and most personally, I can break down how atheism, agnosticism, and secularism (“nones”) became so prevalent in western society. I will have to best analyze the causes of changing poll results, the rejection of religious motivations in government, and the origins of doubters (predominantly in academia, centered in large, wealthy areas; the more objectively independent the person, the more religious). I can analyze the effects of the new largest minority denomination in the United States, and how it went from a taboo position to an “oh, sure, why not?”. Atheists also typically reject religious morality and replace it with common morality, the preservation of fellow humans simply because they’re fellow humans; how has the loosely-defined group of secular individuals gone from having to advocate their mere right to equally exist, to their current state as advocates for reason and the ending of suffering?

Essay Draft+Speech Outline

by Jacob Rodesh

The NRA is perhaps best known for their outlandish support for the Second Amendment. They have a well-documented history of sponsoring over-the-top politicians and media stories with the aim of frightening the public into purchasing firearms. The ad opens with Charlie Daniels, a white-bearded country music singer, addressing the “Ayatollahs of Iran.” Daniels functions as both a hero and a spokesperson, relaying a message and saving the day. This artifact contains mostly images of hardworking, iron-willed Americans overlaid with clips of our military engaged in various conflicts and exercises. These combinations of grizzled patriots and highlights of our strength serve not only to provide a shallow reinforcement of the bombastic American stereotype but also to appeal to right-wing commonplaces. From the mere image of the ad, the NRA’s blatant appeals to the right’s stylistic expression show that Iranian leaders aren’t the only target audience. This ad substantially relies on the kairotic elements in the Republican zeitgeist after six and a half years of the Obama administration. Releasing an ad with such inflammatory accusations of treasonous thinking, the NRA cements the credibility of the speaker and best utilizes the kairotic situation. The National Rifle Association uses the Nuclear Agreement’s public debate to reinforce the values of individualism, personal responsibility, support for the military, and excess patriotism held by the American Right.

By appealing to the shared sentiments among conservatives, the narrator establishes himself as one of their own, taking on the values and fears that most right wingers have with regards to national defense. Daniels and the NRA know the fear in the hearts of the average Republican, and they use this to their advantage. The message oh-so-coincidentally, by promoting the self-protection of the homeland, also subsequently promotes increased gun market activity, directly benefiting the organization relaying this message. Reaching their desire for personal responsibility, the ad, in not so many words, encourages them to ready their stockpiles of weapons, as the federal government can’t protect them if the administration is out to sabotage their well-being above all other things. The NRA doesn’t want to seem too transparent in their capitalization on the issue, so their piece shrouds this apparent conflict-of-interest with images of war and intimidation, lighting the fire in right wingers’ hearts that results in a fervor of anti-Democratic party and pro-gun behavior, be it on social media, in weapons markets, or on public television.

Above all, the NRA’s timing in the political universe capitalizes on the unrest in the U.S. A common myth circulating in right wing spheres was that the Obama administration was intentionally undermining our national security and national identity by “submitting to the will of Iran.” Choosing this moment to cancel out all nuance in the issue effectively cancels out the correct lens with which to view the Deal, but the NRA historically fails on the perspective front (insert other WaPo example). At this point, the administration is putting the finishing touches on the agreement that was implemented in mid-January of 2016. Ironically, the NRA itself sabotages the issue and frames the deal to fail and indirectly urges the populace to prepare for the worst possible consequences, rather than working to better the agreement and improve diplomatic relations. 

By knowing how to analyze the rhetorical situation, the NRA best communicates to its unique audience. 

Speech outline:

Who wants to go to war? Because the NRA certainly does! They’re more than willing to threaten foreign lands with death and destruction in the impossible event that they strike the most powerful nation on Earth.

The National Rifle Association released a video in mid-2016 in the midst of the Iranian Nuclear Deal controversy, which the American Right saw as the Democratic establishment “intentionally” undermining our national security.

This video is a microcosm of the right’s mission to derail the Deal. The narrator, a country music singer, uses commonplaces like typical American uber-patriotism and the widespread gun ownership among his audience to persuade the public to take a position that directly benefits the gun lobby that he is representing by appearing in the video.

By pretending that the former administration was on par with the “ayatollahs” of Iran, we see that this message from the right serves to strike at conservatives’ individualism – they’re all they can rely on.

This is a case study in partisan politics. The singling out of a commonly held value in a particular group erases nuance around the issue, and as the media perpetuates the message verbatim, horse-race politics continues.

We’d best recognize how the warmongers word their messages, how they utilize our ignorance and our fear, or we could passively allow another unnecessary offensive attack to unfold in our name.

Thank you.

 

IWID: Passion with Images

by Jacob Rodesh

Looking back through all of Addario’s images, many stuck out to me, but if I had to pick one, it would be the image of the rebel soldiers cowering from Libyan government gunship attacks on the second page of images after page 82, top right. The fact that most of them are unarmed puts their situation into perspective; an underfunded group of people that want to free themselves from the oppressive regime has to go up against a defined military power under the control of a brutal dictator. Not only are they terrified of such a violent death, they’re scared of facing the beast that has practically owned them for all those years. Another picture that impacted me was the group of seated African women on the 10th page of images after text page 210. For whatever reason, they’re all seated together in a group with their young children, presumably as a mass of refugees. I personified their thoughts in my own mind, emulating “these stupid men keep fighting and ruining our lives.” It shook me to rethink all of the casualties of civil war and ethnic cleansing. These women are just a microcosm of the millions displaced by the actions of the radical few.

My passion blog may utilize moving images and videos by showing the plight of poor and middle class Americans. For example, my stance on healthcare may take an image of a cancer-ridden child and use it to talk about the importance of eliminating cost barriers for child cancer treatments. Photographs of homeless veterans and families may highlight my sympathies with all homeless people, as all those on such hard times have been through their own personal battles.

Inner Conflict in Part III

by Jacob Rodesh

Addario feels conflicted about her work all throughout Part III, but a notable incidence of this is when she’s detailing the routine, grueling patrols that the soldiers carry out daily and early in the morning, and that she and her fellow journalist and friend have to complete as well.

She knows that her current environment in Afghanistan is not supportive of life. By this, I mean that the environment was not suited to contain a pregnant woman and her unborn child. Her conflict lies in her knowing that her work takes her into dangerous situations, and that she herself questions whether or not she should be in these war zones at all. Now take these unsure ruminations and turn them onto a mother with a developing child. She makes this conflict relatable by underlining how much trouble her friend Elizabeth has to go through to both keep the baby safe and keep the fact that she is pregnant away from the soldiers, commanders, or the administrative people responsible for embedding her in with the unit. Liz must cover her stomach with extra layers of clothing to stay safe, and those layers assuredly add extra suffering to the mix. Lastly, Addario outlines how Elizabeth’s growing stomach impedes her ability to wear the proper bullet resistant vest while out on patrols.

I would highlight the conflicts that arise when I consistently submerge myself in the depressing troubles of other people; I always wonder if it’s worth the strain on myself and the chipping away at my outward happiness.

DRAFT: Introduction to Artifact Essay

by Jacob Rodesh

The NRA is perhaps best known for their outlandish support for the Second Amendment. They have a well-documented history of sponsoring over-the-top politicians and media stories with the aim of frightening the public into purchasing firearms. The ad opens with Charlie Daniels, a white-bearded country music singer, addressing the “Ayatollahs of Iran.” Daniels functions as both a hero and a spokesperson, relaying a message and saving the day. By dismissing the (then-current) President in such a plebeian fashion, he essentially ruins the credibility of all others except him; he boldly goes where he believes no man has gone before. This artifact contains mostly images of hardworking, iron-willed Americans overlaid with clips of our military engaged in various conflicts and exercises. These combinations of grizzled patriots and highlights of our strength serve not only to provide a shallow reinforcement of the bombastic American stereotype but also to appeal to right-wing commonplaces. This “warning” to Iran utilizes conservatives’ individualism and uber-patriotism in timing with the Iran Nuclear Deal to artificially back them into a corner From the mere image of the ad, the NRA’s blatant appeals to the right’s stylistic expression show that Iranian leaders aren’t the only target audience. This ad substantially relies on the kairotic elements in the Republican zeitgeist. After six and a half years of the Obama administration’s alleged (by the right) lack of support and disdain for the military, conservatives already doubted the president’s patriotism and devotion to national security. Releasing an ad with such inflammatory accusations of treasonous thinking, the NRA cements the credibility of the speaker and best utilizes the kairotic situation. The National Rifle Association uses the Nuclear Agreement’s public debate to reinforce the values of individualism, personal responsibility, support for the military, and excess patriotism held by the American Right.

Addario’s Techniques – How I Can Benefit

by Jacob Rodesh

I found a particularly vivid part of this section’s reading right fat the beginning of it. Addario recounts her first (of many, I’m sure) visit to Ground Zero just days after the September 11th terror attacks. She describes mounds of “mangled steel and ash,” New Yorkers “clutching their palms to their mouths” as they, too, experience the horror, and the hopeless numbers of posters that desperate, broken families established to aid in the search for their loved ones. This short time at the site transforms her life, personally and professionally, having to file away her wonderful memories with Uxval.

Addario uses vivid descriptions of the scene, from the pathetic perspective of a New Yorker, an American, and a human being, to emphasize the life- altering experience.

My two possible passions each have the potential to utilize this writing style. My political passions can use the vivid descriptions to help word my policy ideas as laws and regulations that apply to real, everyday people, and not just to “the public.” For example, in pushing for lowering taxes on the middle class and the poor, I could describe a horrifically poor family with rent and utilities “final notice” papers plastered on their front door, the refrigerator unplugged to save electricity with whatever little food they can afford slowly spoiling inside, the parents talking to their son or daughter, explaining why they had to take their beloved pet to the shelter and up for adoption because pet food is too expensive. Those descriptions make my thoughts seem a little more urgent.

In the same way, my personal passion, helping those who are going through tough times, can benefit from this style by going into vivid detail describing the horrors of logging onto video chat with an old friend and seeing her arms with fresh cuts on them, the tears flowing down her face, and the choppy video interrupting her quiet sobs.

In either case, these descriptions improve the overall quality of my writing because describing these kinds of situations instead of simply saying that they exist is more effective at promoting the relative importance of my actions.

Outline Draft

by Jacob Rodesh
  1. The NRA is perhaps best known for their outlandish support for the Second Amendment.
    1. The ad opens with Charlie Daniels, a country music singer, addressing the “Ayatollahs of Iran”.
    2. Ad contains mostly images of hardworking, iron-willed Americans overlaid with clips of our military force.
    3. This “warning” to Iran utilizes conservatives’ individualism and uber-patriotism in timing with the Iran Nuclear Deal to slyly promote their brand.
  2. By appealing to the shared sentients among conservatives, the narrator establishes himself as one of their own, taking on the values and fears that most right wingers have with regards to national defense.
    1. The message oh-so-coincidentally, by promoting the self-protection of the homeland, also subsequently promotes increased gun market activity, directly benefitting the organization relaying this message.
    2. It reaches their personal responsibility and, in not so many words, encourages them to ready their stockpiles of weapons, as the federal government ‘can’t protect them’ if the administration is out to sabotage their well-being, in their eyes.
    3. The NRA doesn’t want to seem too transparent in their capitalization on the issue, so their piece shrouds this apparent conflict-of-interest with images of war and intimidation, lighting the fire in right wingers’ hearts that results in a fervor of anti-Democratic party and pro-gun behavior, be it on social media, in weapons markets, or on public television.
  3. Above all, the NRA’s timing in the political universe capitalizes on the unrest in the U.S.
    1. A common myth circulating in right wing spheres was that the Obama administration was intentionally undermining our national security and national identity by “submitting to the will of Iran.”
    2. Choosing this moment to cancel out all nuance in the issue effectively cancels out the correct lense with which to view the Deal, but the NRA historically fails on the perspective front (example).
    3. At this point, the administration is putting the finishing touches on the agreement that was implemented in mid-January of 2016.
    4. Frames the issue into expecting the deal to fail and to prepare for the worst possible consequences, rather than working to better the agreement and improve diplomatic relations.
  4. By knowing how to analyze the rhetorical situation, the NRA best communicates to its unique audience.