DenveRhetor: Covering the rhetorical situation in Denver, CO.

Jimmy Valvano Urges ESPY Audience to Perserver, by Harrison Archer

2011-03-06T21:03:00.003-07:00

As Jimmy Valvano took the podium during the 1983 ESPY awards, after a forty five second applause, the crowd hushed to a unanimous silence, and something amazing took place shortly after. Jimmy V captivated the audience with his instinctual, off the cuff speech and his smooth, comforting tone. His presence was made known as he fascinated the crowd talking about how life should be taken advantage of, and the power to help other people by sacrificing a little bit of yourself is one of the most satisfying things one can do. It was on of the most legendary speeches in the history of American sports. Jimmy V dedicated his life to helping people; he was a hall of fame material coach, a mentor, and his legacy will live on and on forever.

The ESPY awards stands for Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly. In the sports world, this speech is one of the most incredibly moving and inspiring sports speeches ever given. Jimmy Valvano is a legendary college basketball coach who took the N.C. State basketball team to the 1983 NCAA Championship and won against very high odds. He won the ESPY Courage award, this award is given to someone who has stared adversity in the face, and Jimmy V certainly has. Two months after giving this speech, ten years after he won the NCAA basketball tournament and ran up and down the sideline looking for someone to hug, he died of cancer. The sports world was absolutely devastated after it’s loss of such an amazing ambassador. The impact of his speech was due to his stature in the sports world; everyone knew who he was, what he stood for, and what he was fighting against. His credibility as an amazing coach and mentor created a sense of a personal affiliation, he made the audience feel like they were a part of his family, or a group of people that he knew well enough to pour his heart out and open himself up. At the same time, he makes the audience feel at ease; joking about his illness and putting a smile on peoples faces, “I’m gonna speak for longer than anyone else has spoken tonight, I’ve got tumors all over my body, what do I care about a guy in the back holding up a sign that says thirty seconds”. This kind of playful tone lets the audience sit back, relax a little, and really listen to what he wants to say.

Jimmy Valvano addresses the crowd in a way that they can almost feel his pain and try to understand where he is coming from. That is one of the reasons it makes this speech so affective, the audience is able to relate to him because they want to help people they love who are suffering from what he is suffering from. Jimmy V gives them a way to help their loved ones and try to do something for everyone or anyone who is suffering from cancer. In his speech, he tells the audience that there are three things we all must do we all must do everyday, “number one is laugh, you should laugh everyday. Number two is think, you should spend some time in thought. And number three is you should have your emotions moved to tears, in happiness or sadness.” Jimmy Valvano is trying to tell the audience how to take full advantage of life, because no one in that room sees life from the way he now does. He sees life in a way, “you don’t know what you got till its gone”. He evokes something from the audience that causes them to feel sad, and want to help, and as an orator, that’s all you can ask for.

Throughout this speech, Jimmy V is speaking from the bottom of his heart, and when people know someone is speaking from the bottom of their heart with passion, it is one hundred percent more effective. Jimmy V is basically on his last leg, he is in his last stage of life and he announces that at the beginning of his speech. He sees life in a completely different way. He asks the audience take full advantage of what’s in front of them and cherish the time you have on this earth, because you never know when it could be taken from you.

Since his death, the Jimmy V foundation has raised over 70 million dollars for cancer research; this just goes to show what a difference people with money can create when they are convinced and driven by someone they love like Jimmy V. Jimmy Valvano is a legend. Even without life, Jimmy V continues to help people every single day because of his passion, peace of mind, and motivation. “I’ve gotta go, I’ve got one last thing and iv said it before and I’m gonna say it again, cancer can take away all my physical abilities, but it cannot touch my mind, it cannot touch my heart, and it cannot touch my soul, and those three things are gonna carry on forever”(Jimmy Valvanos, 1993 ESPY awards)

Local Representative Urges Council to Support Bike Sharing, by JoJo Cuchiaro

2011-03-06T14:07:00.002-07:00

A Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) board meeting was held on Friday, February 4th. The primary topic discussed in the meeting was Denver Bike Sharing. A representative, Parry W. Burnap, gave a detailed presentation on the work of the organization to the board of RAQC representatives. She did so in hopes that that the council will allow the association to include air quality alerts in their “B-cycle” media. Also, fundamentally, it is important to have big names in the community (such as the RAQC) in support of up and coming public businesses in order to gain more popularity and federal funding.

Ms. Burnap used a PowerPoint presentation and introduced a strong argument for how the organization has and will continue to better the city of Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a Colorado non-profit corporation that has been organized and will be operated to promote health, quality of life and preservation of the environment in Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a 501 (c) 3. By building and operating a comprehensive, city-wide bike sharing system, Denver Bike Sharing is offering residents and visitors an alternative form of public transportation, which is both environmentally-friendly and affordable. Denver B-cycle will complement and be integrated with the City’s overall transportation system.

Burnap emphasized what Denver Bike Sharing can do for our city. She mentioned how the system is a perfect example of urban planning at its best. The system stimulates the city’s economy, while promoting both community and sustainability. She persuaded the audience with the statement, “The City’s vision is to change the culture of transportation in Denver by implementing bike sharing, reinforcing the innovative and environmentally focused way Denver and its leadership work toward solutions to reducing obesity, lowering carbon emissions, and providing affordable transportation.” Why not help this organization, and ultimately help contribute to the bettering of our community?

Furthermore, Ms. Burnap adds to her argument that, “Public bike sharing is a personally and environmentally healthy solution that will improve our traffic congestion and showcase Denver’s recreation/health-related lifestyle.” The City has made and continues to make strides to improve the infrastructure for safe cycling. Bike sharing will support the City’s Strategic Transportation Plan and be integrated into the larger multi-modal transportation system, including buses and the light rail, which makes Denver one of the most accessible downtown areas of any city in the U.S.

At the conclusion of Ms. Burnap’s informative presentation, the board took a vote on weather to be in support of Denver Bike Sharing. The Regional Air Quality Council voted unanimously in favor of the new organization, and expressed their excitement for helping with future endeavors and cross promotions. Parry W. Burnap did an excellent job of informing her audience of the many benefits of having her organization in the City of Denver. Through rhetoric, she successfully persuaded the RAQC board to support Denver Bike Sharing. The partnership will without a doubt make a positive impact on our already wonderful community.

Writer Supports Concealed Carry on University Campuses, by David Madsen

2011-03-06T13:32:00.005-07:00

Colorado State University was one of the few University’s that allowed concealed carry weapons on campus. That was until 2009 when a ban was set on concealed weapons on campus. CSU faculty board voted 7-0 to ban concealed weapons on campus. Even with the Student Association vote of a 21-3, the ban was till set. Colorado State University (CSU) allowed students with concealed weapon permits to carry on campus in 2003. There are many arguments out there about concealed carry on school campuses. There will always be the question, if teachers were allowed to conceal carry at Columbine High School or students at Virginia Tech were allowed to conceal carry, would have there been fewer casualties? This question cannot be answered. There are schools that do allow students or faculty to conceal carry, which it is argued that the crime in those schools are low and there has not been any school shootings. The reason I am interested in this article is because I am a concealed weapon carrier, and believe that colleges and universities should allow concealed weapons on campus.

The author argues that concealed weapons do belong in schools. The author explains that the state of Utah prohibits schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that public schools allow concealed weapons on campus. Utah has not had any deaths caused by guns on a school campus, other than suicide. The author uses an example of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake in 2007. The mall was a posted gun-free zone. The shooter was taken down after killing 5 people by an off duty police officer who was carrying a firearm. If that off duty officer was not carrying a firearm, how many people could of died? Knowing that the mall was a gun-free zone makes it an easy target. The shooter knows that nobody will have a gun to stop him and he can kill unarmed people. The author uses another example in Texas passing a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons. With this law in place it eliminates shootings at the schools. This law allows the teachers to protect the students a lot more. As the author said before, knowing that the school allows teachers to carry a concealed weapon makes the school less of a target. The author provides the readers with graphs of the crime rate at CSU. In 2003, CSU allowed students with concealed weapons permits to carry concealed weapons on campus. It was expected that the crime rate would skyrocket. As the graphs show the crime rate going down significantly. Crimes such as sexual assaults and aggravated assault on campus. The author concludes that concealed weapons do belong in schools and concealed carry does not lead to Wild West shootouts and random guns fights.

On the opposing side of the argument say that having concealed weapons on campus can make a distraction for the students. What if a student gets a hold of a teacher’s weapon? Students are human, they get upset and angry. Having a concealed weapon and being angry with another student is a bad mix, its like putting gas on a fire. The opposing side says that the less weapons on campus, the less chance of a shooting to happen. The author responds to these arguments by bringing up schools in Utah and how there has not been a school shooting in any Utah schools. He also brings up the crime rate decrease at CSU after 2003 when students were allowed to carry concealed weapons.

The author tries to keep the readers for concealed carry on campuses and to bring in the readers against concealed carry on campuses. The author first starts his article with the facts of the change of concealed carry on CSU campus. As said before, the author gives two examples of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake and a law that passed in Texas that allows teachers to conceal carry. He gives these examples to help his argument. These examples show that conceal carry will lower crime in schools and could prevent a lot of deaths in a public shooting. The author also provides graphs of crime rates in CSU in his article. These graphs show the crime rate drops after allowing students to conceal carry on campus in 2003. These graphs help the author’s argument by showing the readers that allowing students to conceal carry will prevent crime on campus and could save life’s if a shooting did take place on campus. The author also states his personal experiences with carrying a firearm into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state of Utah. He states that he has carried a concealed weapon on school campuses in Utah and did not have to turn around and take his weapon back to his vehicle or break the law by carrying the weapon. He also states that he has never gone crazy and started shooting just because he is on school property.

In this article the author argues that concealed weapons should be allowed at schools. The author is a concealed weapon carrier and has carried his weapon on school property in Utah, where schools cannot ban concealed carry. The author believes that concealed carry at schools have the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself and believes that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. The author uses the schools that do allow concealed carry as an example why concealed carry is a good idea for schools. There has not been an shooting in any of the Utah schools. The author believes that if a school allows concealed carry then the chance of a shooting is lowered extremely, and if there is a shooting then the casualties will be minimal. CSU was one of the few that allowed concealed weapons on campus. In 2009, the CSU school board voted 7-0 on a ban of concealed weapons on campus. CSU first started to allow students with concealed permits to carry on campus in 2003, the crime on campus decreased over the next few years. As a concealed weapons carrier, I too believe that concealed weapons should be allowed on school campuses. It would reduce crime on campus and allows the students to protect themselves. Just because someone has a weapon does not mean they are going to start shooting everyone.

CSU Bans Concealed Carry
By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr.,
WWW.youcancarry.com

Panel Introduces DU Students to Immigration Issues, by Shelby Dunstan

2011-03-06T09:16:00.002-07:00

The chairs were aligned in a tight knit circle all facing one another. Every seat was filled by a curious and intrigued individual. All sat in silence, waiting for these two ‘outsiders’ to speak and share their stories. The anticipation grew. Finally, a young woman welcomed everyone. A grad student at the University of Denver, she began to introduce the controversial topic at hand. “Immigration in a new light,” was to provide others with the knowledge of immigration past what we hear beyond the news. She presents two individuals in order to show the audience the true stories of immigration. Without hesitation, she states that immigrants should be treated better in our society and be given a rightful opportunity in this country.

First, the woman presents Richard Froude. As soon as he opens his mouth, the entire audience’s ears open wider, giving their full attention to this scruffy looking man. His strong English accent automatically categorizes him as someone different, as an outsider to American society. With his arms crossed and a coffee in his hand, he begins saying “I have had a great deal of privilege as an immigrant in America.” The look on people’s faces clearly illustrates that it is odd to think of a white English speaking man as an immigrant. Froude continues to explain even though he came from a similar culture with the same language; as soon as he speaks people begin to judge him. Barley glancing up from his paper of typed notes, Richard Froude gives a brief summary of his life in America. He explains the difficulties of maintaining multiple visas and the anxiety from jumping from job to job. According to Froude, Americans do not understand the complex cycle one must endure to apply for a green card. While Froude believes he was very lucky with the opportunities he had in America, he still does not understand why such a wealthy country treats immigrants so poorly. While Froude clearly explained the difficulties living as an immigrant, the other speaker argued his point much better.

“Buenos tardes,” began Dr. Miguel De La Torre in a cheerful voice. A Professor of Social Ethics, Miguel moved to the United States from Cuba. On April 3, 1961 he was told he had 30 days to leave the country. According to the INS code, he had overstayed his tourist visa and was an undocumented immigrant. “You all probably believe I came to America looking for freedom,” he says to young eyes all set on him. He refutes his statement stating everyone is naive and wrong for thinking so. Miguel De La Torre came to America because of the United States foreign policies in Latin America. He continues to expand on his historical evidence about the country of Cuba and its recent laws. His use of hard evidence convinces his audience that he knows what he is talking about.

Unlike Richard Froude, Miguel De La Torre’s use of pathos captures his audience. He sat forward, with his elbows on his knees, engaging with each individual. Every person felt as though his story was meant for them. Starting off as energetic, his voice soon become more serious. Miguel began to talk about the issue of the border patrol. Immigrants come into this country with the intent of escaping theirs or looking for a new opportunity in ours. The people working the border patrol stated that “brown people will die crossing the border, but it will deter others from crossing later on.” This statement is brutal in the fact that they do not care if immigrants suffer and die in the process of crossing over a single border. The dead and rotten corpses will show the others that their plan of escaping did not work, and that others should not try. Miguel De La Torre emphasizes this point by taking out a wallet size picture of a child; a 14 year old girl. The young Mexican girl was an example of one to show others the consequences of her actions. She tried crossing the border, sprained her ankle, and her corpse was later found by the border patrol half eaten by coyotes. Eyes opened wide and jaws dropped. The thought of a young child dying with no purpose at all stirred the emotions in the room. He passes the photograph around the room. Actually holding the small picture of a young girl smiling before her death is absolutely heart breaking and makes one see firsthand the reality of this situation. Miguel removes his glasses and leans forward; “there is something morally wrong when a 14 year old girl dies in the richest country.”

A young student girl raises her hand; “How do we resolve this issue then?” He replies, “I have absolutely no idea.” It has taken over 100 years to make a mess out of immigration, and it will take longer to resolve. Miguel begins, “I don’t know what to think about immigration, but it is unacceptable how are dealing with it.” This single sentence sums up his entire view on the issue of immigration. He believes that no matter race, gender, or ethnicity, we should be humane to each other. Not supplying immigrants with medications in detention centers is inhumane. Deporting women and kids with no access to resources is inhumane. Making women take birth control because they will probably be raped is even more inhumane. All of these issues need to be solved in order for immigration to go anywhere.

Proven both by Richard Froude and Miguel De La Torre, immigration is a topic that is judged intently by Americans. As Americans, we view immigrants as having lower status than us and as different people overall. We do not look at their reasons behind their choice to move to the United States. Froude and Torre successfully illustrate the struggles immigrants have to overcome just to live in America. They both agree that “the richest country in the world” should be more understanding about their situations. Overall, it is argued that people should be treated with respect, no matter where they come from. With the standing ovation at the end, it shows that the people only agree.

Speakers on Immigration Reveal Difficulties with U.S. System, by Chris Kyriazi

2011-03-06T09:01:00.003-07:00

The United States of America has always had immigration as one of its cornerstones. In fact, almost every single person living in the U.S. currently was or descended from an immigrant; hence, the nickname of “Melting Pot of the World”. In recent years, the debate on how immigration should be limited has become a key component of politician’s platforms, as well as a topic of many heated debates. Dr. de la Torre and Dr. Richard Froude are two immigrants to the United States within the past 50 years. They came and shared their experiences, but more importantly they revealed how difficult it is to immigrate to this great country.

Dr. Richard Froude first came to America as a student. His original thought was that he would spend some time here and then go back to Great Britain, which is where he is originally from. His first visa, which was a F1 visa, allowed him to finish his schooling, and then when it expired in two years he had to go back to Europe. His education left him with a writing degree. He attempted to find a job that would appeal to his possession of such degree. This was difficult for him, but he finally found work and he got his visa renewed. He went through the cycle of moving from job to job, and renewed visa to renewed visa, until he found himself in L.A. He worked post-production for some movies and television shows for some time, but then his visa completely expired. He then struggled to obtain a professional visa. This would allow him a much longer stay in the United States. But unfortunately, the process needed to acquire a professional visa was very confusing and expensive, involving thousands of dollars. He finally got the visa, but by then he had a girlfriend. They discussed getting married, but they didn’t want the main reason to be assuring his stay in the U.S. Right as they finally agreed that they in fact would get married, Dr. Froude received a letter saying that he qualified for a green card. This said that he was a “permanent resident” of the United States. This is his current status. He is not allowed to vote, nor does he get Social Security or other benefits, but he still has to pay taxes. At the moment, he is trying to attain dual citizenship. He told us a story of how complicated this process is, although he is slowly pushing through it. Throughout the whole talk, it was stressed that he had no language barrier at all, and almost no cultural barrier. Becoming an immigrant to the U.S. would have been much more difficult had he had those hurdles to jump over as well. Take this into consideration, looking at how much he had to go through without the other barriers.

Dr. Richard Froude’s direct description of the immigration process into the United States is that it is a “difficult, confusing, expensive process.” In a way, that is an appeal to pathos. He is doing this by almost subconsciously asking for our pity in how difficult the route of immigration is. He explained how many people come here for a better life, and they have to do so much to achieve that. Dr. Froude also exhibits good timing for this speech. The current spectrum of immigration might not apply specifically to British immigrants, but the topic is still a much-discussed issue. He made his point well with many facts and examples. For instance, when he was discussing the high costs of getting dual citizenship, he used specific numbers. He said that it cost him $3000 just to file all of the papers, and then sometimes you might even need a lawyer to read over everything. Overall, Dr. Richard Froude was a very convincing speaker. He was not very animated, but you could tell he was passionate about this topic, as it had changed his life.

The other presenter was a man named Dr. de la Torre. He had come to the United States when he was a child from Cuba. On April 3, 1961, he was forcibly asked to leave the country. He claimed that the reason why he came to the United States in the first place is because of U.S. foreign policy. He specified that “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” So, in essence, he said that he, and all other Latin American immigrants, belongs here. He supported his argument moderately well, as he talked about the United States’ “gunboat policy” of the past century and how that affected immigrants and Latin America in general. He also discussed how, in 1994, NAFTA ruined every farmer in Mexico; within a year of NAFTA being passed, over one million farmers had lost their farms.

Dr. de la Torres had an especially strong appeal to pathos. He passed around a picture of a fourteen year old girl that died trying to cross the desert into the U.S. because she sprained her ankle. This is founded on the commonplace that (obviously) it is wrong that a young girl should die trying to have a better life. He also explained how the border patrol works mostly on the notion of “deterrent policy”. This is the idea that if you let people die trying to cross the border, it will discourage and frighten other people from trying. Dr. de la Torres’s kairos was also perfect because this is such a huge argument in modern day America.

Both Dr. Froude and Dr. de la Torres arguments were convincing, and their presentation and delivery sound. I look forward to possibly going to listen to people like them talk again.

Condoleeza Rice Defends Post-9/11 Policies, by Monica Duffy

2011-03-06T08:46:00.003-07:00

I chose to watch a speech made by Condoleezza Rice, one of our very own University of Denver graduates. This speech was delivered on April 8, 2004 in Washington D.C. in response to the attacks of 9/11. On September 11, 2001 one of the most horrific and devastating attacks in the history of our country was made on the United States. The terrorist group Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airline planes and proceeded to crash one of them into the Pentagon and two of them into the World Trade Center in New York. The fourth plane was heroically taken over by the passengers after it had been hijacked but devastatingly still crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Condoleezza Rice delivered this speech to make the people of our nation aware of the steps that our country was taking to retaliate against this national crisis.

This speech was successful based upon a couple key rhetorical devices used by Rice. She was able to incorporate the use of pathos, logos, and ethos as well as including many other rhetorical strategies such as extrinsic evidence and commonplaces.

One of the main reasons that Condoleezza Rice’s speech was so successful in regards to the American public would be the fact that she addressed commonplaces that applied to basically the entire nation. We, as the American people, were all deeply affected and moved by the tragedy of 9/11. This is something that affected each person in this country personally and emotionally thus creating it a commonplace. The citizens of the United States all have identical or at least extremely similar feelings of anger, shock, and patriotism. This is the commonplace that Rice tried to address. She states, “And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day. Now we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together.” Rice addresses the fact that the American people all feel the same way about the attacks on 9/11. By doing so, she unites her audience together, and is able to create a stronger message towards them. Rice’s argument that “the entire nation believes that what Al Qaeda did to our country was wrong and horrific” is an argument that is already in general circulation. Basically what this means is that Rice is stating the obvious. We know that the country feels this way about 9/11, but by Rice bringing this up in her speech, she is able to successfully add to her persuasion of her audience’s beliefs.

Condoleezza Rice was also able to use logos in her speech to successfully persuade her audience. She uses deductive reasoning to convince the people that the actions that President Bush has taken following 9/11 are the right steps to carry out. She states, “Bold and comprehensive changes are somewhat -- sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events, events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting… President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security… And he has done this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.” Rice creates this clear and concise argument by using deductive reasoning. In her first sentence, she makes a broad and general statement that could apply to any kind of situation, not necessarily this one particularly. Then, she takes the time to apply this idea to the issue that she is faced with today. By applying this general idea towards a specific situation, she is delivering her opinion in a way that makes it hard for her audience to argue or disagree with her.

Probably the most effective rhetorical device that Rice used in her speech was pathos. 9/11 was clearly an extremely emotional event for our country. By addressing the emotional side of this speech topic, Rice had an upper hand in convincing her audience of her argument. She states, “So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day.” This statement is filled with phrases that will make the American people feel either distressed, angry, or have some other extreme emotion. She appeal to the audience’s emotions on the subject by using language that is blunt and extreme. When people have emotional connections to a topic or to an idea, they have much more incentive to make that idea their own and imitate that opinion. Rice was very strategic in appealing to the audience’s emotion, especially in regards to such a strong topic such as this one.

Lastly, Rice seems like a credible source and a reliable person to listen to towards her audience. She uses extrinsic evidence to back up what she is saying. Instead of just using opinions and conjectures, she delivers her speech and fills it with facts and information for her listeners. For example, “The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.” Another example could be, “The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking.” Rice uses these facts from different departments of the government to prove that what she is saying is correct. By using extrinsic evidence, she is able to convince her audience of her argument by using actual facts instead of strictly opinion. People in general will always listen to facts over opinion. Facts are facts, so to speak. They are statements that cannot be contradicted because they are true. Whereas, contrary to facts, opinions are ideas that can be changed and argued against. So, by Rice using this extrinsic evidence to further her point, she strengthens her overall argument and ultimately wins the trust of her audience.

Condoleezza Rice creates an extremely compelling and trustworthy argument in the deliverance of her speech on the topic of 9/11. She not only uses logos and pathos to persuade her audience, but she also uses rhetorical devices such as commonplaces and extrinsic evidence to connect with her listeners and win their trust in her beliefs and opinions.

Immigration in a New Light, by Sheridan Sleeper

2011-03-04T18:29:00.002-07:00

In a recent on-campus lecture discussing immigration, Dr. Miguel De La Torre of Cuba and Richard Froude of England discussed the issues of immigration as well as the perception of immigrants in the United States. They conferred their experiences of coming to America, addressed the various generalizations made by US citizens about immigrants, and compared their stories for the audience. The audience consisted of students, professors, university staff, and others from outside the DU population. We all sat in a circle to generate a sense of community as well as to foster conversation. The environment was as first awkward however became relaxed as Dr. De La Torre and Froude spoke of their immigration.

Richard Froude spoke first of his arrival in the United States as a student. In 2002, he traveled to Boulder with a two year visa and the hopes of achieving a master’s degree. After receiving his masters, his visa expired which meant he needed another in order to work towards a graduate degree. With each new visa, his desire to live in the United States heighted tremendously. There are many differing types of visas based on conditions and time lengths. Richard began with the F1 Student Visa. The last visa he lived on was the H1B Visa which allowed him to work in Portland. Applying for a visa is an incredibly expensive and lengthy process. They can range from $50 to $2000 in addition to filling out six or seven forms. Many are exceptionally confusing which he pointed out is even more challenging for an immigrant with a language barrier. He and his current wife decided to wed not solely for the purpose of obtaining a green card, but he had few other alternatives. Richard continuously stressed how difficult this process would have been had he not spoken English and come from such comparable culture. He stated, “I have a huge respect for those people and their families,” when referring to language barriers. Richard Froude’s experience was certainly no walk through the park and he had much more in favor of his immigration than most. As spectators, we felt sympathetic to the people who are subjected to such a confusing system standing in the way of their freedom.

Froude was rhetorical in the narration of his story through his emphasis on culture variations and language differences. He stated, “I pay taxes, more than actual citizens, yet I can’t vote or claim social security.” Immigrants pay thousands of dollars to stay in the country whether gaining citizenship or reapplying for visas and green cards. His appeal to pathos in these comments forced the audience to step back and appreciate our natural citizenship as Americans. Most Americans do not understand the process and its difficulty, yet we create biases and hatred towards ethnic groups in our nation. He is persuasive simply in communicating the process of immigrating because it is strenuous and over-whelming. In addition, he depicted to the audience that he is an invisible immigrant in our community. He looks American and blends in racially until his accent is heard in conversation, then he is considered “different”.

The second speaker, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, faced a dissimilar migration. Dr. De La Torre has been a citizen of the United States for over 50 years and was granted citizenship as a child because he was a Cuban resident. During his time of exodus, Cubans were automatically granted naturalization if they were able to reach the US. He began his lecture by stating that he was here because of the US foreign policies in Latin America, not to take advantage of the systems like most Americans assume. This comment was powerful in addressing the immature stereotypes and accusations we place on immigrants in our nation. Furthermore, Dr. De La Torre established his ethos in declaring that, “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” During the Mexican-American War, the US seized hundreds of thousands of acres of land from Mexico to further establish this economic powerhouse of a nation. Our economy is extremely influential in Mexico and due to our significant agriculture industry, we export much of our crops to Mexico. This exportation drives up prices in Mexico. Consequently, the citizens of Mexico who are paid twenty dollars a week must pay US prices for goods which are contributing majorly to the poverty rates. Dr. De La Torre referred to a quote from a man he met while working on the border to support his pathos, “I make $20 a week when the pimple-faced kid over the border at the Golden Arches makes $20 in two or three hours of work.” This is a brutal truth that is unfortunate and devastating because the poverty levels are brought into realization.

One of his major points though that hit the audience hard and perturbed many people was that our country’s attempt at deterring people from crossing the border is by allowing some to pass only to die in the process. He averred, “A sprained ankle or blister is a death sentence when crossing the border.” To affirm the comment he provided an example of a thirteen-year-old girl that died crossing the border after spraining her ankle. Again to add to his pathos, Dr. De La Torre passed a picture of the girl around for everyone to view. The picture made us feel truly sad and genuinely reflect on the process of immigration. Seeing the face of a child, who should have had a long life ahead of her that died because of crossing the border, is upsetting. Personally, I felt extreme anger towards our government and border patrol at this point of the lecture. We treat immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico, like dogs, which is inappropriate for such a “great nation”.

Dr. De La Torre was much more persuasive in his arguments because he works with immigrants to help in crossing the border safely and successfully whereas Richard Froude talked only of his personal experience. Dr. De La Torre added kairos into his discussion through addressing the major concerns and controversies surrounding our current border patrol. He disagrees with Obama’s stance on border patrol and the minute men. In regards to the US soil being previously owned by Mexico, he stated, “Obama needs to realize the United States builds roads to take cheap labor and natural resources from Mexico and the immigrants are taking the roads we build to find what was taken from them”. We receive fifty to sixty percent of world’s resources for only six percent of the world’s population, according to De La Torre. These facts and astonishing numbers were eye-opening to audience because we are ill-educated about this information.

Overall, the United States is a very selfish nation and the majorities are not willing to give up what we have so others we do not know can eat. Emigrating from another country into the US seems like an impossible process that should be an equal opportunity. In order for nationalism to ensue we must realize these people from other nations are contributing members of our society that deserve respect. The challenges these people face in order to gain American freedom are grueling obstacles that we frequently disregard. Many of us take advantage of our freedom and immigration is going to continue whether we like it or not. We need to be respectful of foreigners in our country and work to tolerate these racial differences that are ever prevalent in our communities. The US is evolving and as citizens of a great nation, we must embrace diversity.

Less Carbon Footprints, Better Environment

2011-03-04T18:21:00.003-07:00

In the fist fall after I had been here, after a long hot summer, my friend told me, it would be snow in October. However, the snow was not begun until November. As we all know recently the global warming changed the climate obviously. The snow season came shorter and the summer turned to be longer is an obvious sign of global warming. What’s cause the global warming? “Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up.” Also, these carbon dioxides and air pollution are named greenhouse gases. Carbon footprints measure how much carbon dioxide we produce in daily life. To decrease carbon footprints, there are two important points, reduce and recycle.

Matthias mentions that more carbon dioxide can increase the growth of the plant. We would have more food. This is because the plants need carbon dioxide to grow. “With free airborne plant fertilizer and longer growing seasons, food production will skyrocket.” Also we can suffer a shorter cold days during the winter. Although summer itself would not get longer, days with warm temperatures will last longer then before. “So stock up on bathing suits.” It sounds like not a bad thing.

Nevertheless, what’s more important, the increase of temperature has bad effect of people’s health. As the weather become warmer, some diseases get a suitable environment to alive and spend. Because of the climate change, heat, humidity and rainfall will bring more mosquitoes, ticks and other parasites and carriers of tropical and subtropical disease to spread. Even to the area where these disease are not exist. Another fact as we all know is that if the temperature keeps increasing the sea levels are also rising as a result of global warming. This is harmful to islands and low-lying areas. People who live in that area may loss their home if is continues. There are some place disappeared because of global warming, like the Tiny Island which was in Bay of Bengal. All over the word faced these problems. If we focus on Colorado specially, for example, the longer time of summer and the shorter snow season changes water and snow pack, which is a great risk for Colorado. “Environment Colorado pointed to the current Boulder County Fourmile Canyon fire which has burned over 7,000 acres and 169 structures, along with the 2009 Boulder County Olde Stage Fire which burned over 3,000 acres during the winter, as examples of severe damage that extreme weather can cause.”

As it brings such a huge influence, where are these large amounts of greenhouse gas come from? A research shows that, 32 present of greenhouse gas come from electricity and heat. Land use change and forestry produce 24 present of greenhouse gas, there is 17 present from transportation, other fuel combustion are produce almost 10 present of greenhouse gas and industrial processes produce about 3 present greenhouse gas. As a result the carbon prints have connection with our individual life are from the electricity and heat and the transportation. The greenhouse gas they produced almost half of the whole quantity.

It is not as hard as we considered reducing carbon prints. We can start it from our daily life. There are two important points: reduce and recycle.

There are many things we can do to reduce the carbon footprints. As the above mentions, there are about 50 present carbon footprints come from electricity and heater and from the transportation. At the warm days, turn the thermostat up two degrees, and during the cold weather turn the thermostat down two degrees. In this way, it will decrease carbon output by about 2,000 pounds per year and can save about $98 per year for everyone. It is a quite good way, which benefit both the environment and people themselves. Nowadays people cannot leave without cell phone to connect with their family, friends, or people they have work relations. We usually keep them on even if we don’t use them, like after going to bed at night. Because we use our cell phone a lot, the battery used up quickly. Some of people include we have a bad habit, we don’t unplug electronics when don’t use them. Also like our stereos, after we used them, we always forget to unplug electronics. And we feel it is convinces for us because next time before we use them we don’t need to put the electronics on. However, even when electronics are turned off, something like cell phone charges, stereos, toasters and computers keep using energy. If people pull plugs out of the wall, they can save about 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide and $256 per year. It is easier to figure out there are too much traffic on the road. More and more people prefer to have a car because it makes life easier. While standing besides the street, people could not feel comfortable, as the cars produce too much carbon dioxide. If people can take the bus or light-rail, ride a bike, walk or carpool at least on day a week, they could avoid producing large mounts of carbon dioxide. From a research, every time people avoid driving one mile, they save one pound of carbon dioxide. Also, fill the car tires while driving. Inflated tires need more energy to roll, it means people need more frequent fill up gasoline. According to the Department of Energy, people can improve their fuel economy by about 3.3 percent if them keep their tires inflated properly. It shows that a car that normally gets 25 miles per gallon and drives 12,000 miles per year would require on extra 16- gallon fill-up annually and this extra 16 gallon need about $50. Multiply that by a million cars and the difference really adds up.

Another useful method to reduce carbon dioxide is recycling. Every time we recycle one pound of garbage, we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by one pound. In Denver, there is a website (www.denvergov.org/DenverRecycles ) for people to recycle the old or useless stuffs. At home there are always some old things like laptop, television and so on. We don’t use them any more, but they still stay at our home. This is because we don’t know where to throw them away and we afraid they might damage environment. While in this website, they prove us a easy way to recycle our useless things. What you need to do is sign up for pick up. If you live in a single-family house, town home, or an apartment building with fewer than seven units, you can get residential pick up for free. If you live in a larger apartment complex, you can click on the recycling directory link to find the closest drop off recycling center.

We all know global warming had already become a world wild issue, it has close connection with everyone. While to cut down the carbon footprints, is the key point to solve global warming. If we pay attention “reduce” and “recycle”, control the production of carbon dioxide in the nature environment would not be tough any more.

DU Panel on Immigration Critiques System, by Cam Seglem

2011-03-03T22:17:00.006-07:00

Have you ever thought about what it would be like to immigrate to another country and all the hardships of becoming a citizen in that country? How about trying to get into another country illegally? These are problems that many people experience all too often. A lot of the hardships are due the lack of help people receive in such situations.

These were the issues that were addressed in suite 1800 in Driscol hall on Thursday Feburary 10th in a small intimate group of people at the University of Denver. We were in a small circular group with no more than 20 people. After the introductory remarks the two rhetor’s were introduced, being Miguel de la Torre and Richard Froude. Richard Froude being more so concerned with the obtaining of a green card in America and the difficulties of that and Miguel de la Torre is an activist fighting for a better boarder system and to help illegal immigrants. This event was held as an information session more so than an open debate about Immigration and boarder control of our country. It touched on aspects of foreign policy and local policies for things such as obtaining work visas, green cards, citizenship and the reason why so many illegal immigrants especially from Mexico enter our country. Richard Froude had a very interesting story to tell the group however, Miguel de la Torre’s segment was much more provocative in its material.

One such man who tries to help these illegal immigrants is Dr. Miguel de la Torre. He is from Cuba and is all too familiar with our countries immigration policies and the hardships that come with them. On April 3, 1961 he was asked to leave the country or face being deported because his work visa had expired. He works for a group called “No more Deaths”, in which they support immigrants who cross our border illegally. They are not assisting these people to cross our boarders illegally but, instead to give them resources such as food and water so that they don’t die. Miguel is an activist that is trying to change the way our boarders, especially on the American side, are handled and to stop the unneeded deaths. No country is perfect however; there is no need for deaths to occur to people who are trying to better themselves and their families.

In a Country that uses 60-65% percent of the world’s resources for only about 6% of the world’s population, it is no wonder that people are trying to get into our country any way they can. However, as stated by Dr. Miguel this is not the only reason why there has been an influx in people trying to enter our country. Due to globalization, free trade, and certain US policies the United States has been able to subsidize goods that Latin American countries produce at a much lower price. These prices are so much cheaper that people like farmers, cannot compete in the market. Think of it this way, if the skill set you had developed your entire life suddenly became overshadowed by the most powerful country in the world, what would you do? Your profession and product you make becomes useless because no one wants your goods for the price you have to sell them for because they can get the same product for much cheaper. This leaves a person with very few choices, and in the case of Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, the choice becomes obvious. Get into the country that has taken your business and start to work and make a living there.

When Dr. de La Torre presented our group with this scenario it invoked a lot of different emotions. Especially when he said that there have been over 3600 deaths trying to cross our boarder and this number could easily be underestimated by 60%. However, when he was asked for his personal opinion on how to fix these problems he had no solution. This was quite disappointing because he grasped the attention of the entire audience through his pathos but, didn’t deliver a final all inclusive solution.

I do see the flaws in our system, however it is entirely too complicated of a system for a quick fix. The first steps are to remove the inhumane aspects used on border patrol, deportation, and immigration. The unprovoked beatings of illegal immigrants cannot continue to occur, and the repercussions of these beatings should be enforced. It’s impossible to please everyone however this doesn’t mean that we cannot protect people’s personal safety. In a world where being internationally conscious because of the continued growth of globalization can be seen everywhere there will have to be changes in certain policies or we will never be able to coexist being free of fear or racial tensions.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream of Equality, by Xiaoting Liu

2011-02-19T00:17:00.004-07:00

In 1863, president Abraham Lincoln signed in the Emancipation Proclamation, which claimed “all persons held as slaves within the rebellious areas are, and henceforward shall be free.” Nevertheless black people still could not get respect from white people in United States. They could not go to the same school with white people, they could not vote for the policy events which have connect with them, and also they could not get respect from other people because their skin color. In a word, they had not freedom actually. As a result, a great people named Martin Luther King gave a speech “I have a dream” at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. in 1963.

Even though, the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued for a hundred of years, black people didn’t have right in United State. Martin Luther King came out to strive for black people’s right. He announced that black people should have the same right as white people because they are both God’s son and they born as equal.

At the beginning, Martin Luther King explained that because the historical problems black people loss their right. And now in a democratic country black people should have right. Also, all people had accepted the Emancipation Proclamation. However, the promise of free for black people was like a check that has not been cashed. Here he metaphors their freedom as a check that has not been negotiate, which is easy to understand what the situation is and why it should be turn into fact.

In his speech, he uses many repetitions to add his words become more power and more pervasive. For example, he repeats “one hundred years later” to describe what was the situation of black people. From his words, it would let people think about how unfair the condition was for black people. Later, he asks himself a question and answers also in repetition. “when will you be satisfied ?” In his replies, he mentions equal in every situation like black children could in hands with white children. It shows people the his strong wish of equal of all people.

Also, he gives out his reasons why it is urgent to solve this problem. If this problem would not be solved, black people would keep legitimating discontent. There will have no pace in United States. From the reasoning and the resulting, it shows people how serious the problem is. Everyone wants to have a peaceful life in his or her country.

Martin Luther King also mentions how to solve this people. He believes it should be solve by soul instead by violence. “Let us not seek to satisfy our theist for freedom by drinking form the cup of bitterness and hatred.” He put their thirst of freedom into a situation of thirst to have water and he claims that we should not get out our thirsty by drinking bitterness and hatred. In this way, he corrects many black people’s radical minds. At that time when black people would not get respect from white people, instead they were discriminated by white people. Black people would not feel comfortable at that situation, so it is easy for them to hate white people. While this emotion existed, it is not good for the calm of United States’ society.

At the end of his speech, he uses repetitions and metaphors to show his goals. He repeats “I have a dream” to lead all his good wishes for black people. Imaging what happened if all black people gain the rights that belong to them. For instance, their children would not be judged by their skin color but by the real content that they have. It gives all people a beautiful picture of their future. Also, encouraging all people to work together to make this beautiful future come true.

Randy Pausch Urges Audience to Achieve Childhood Dreams, by Jeremy Noble

2011-02-18T23:05:00.005-07:00

The lecture I decided to report on was “The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”. This lecture was by Randy Pausch who was a courageous and inspiring human being. Randy was born October 23rd, 1960 and passed away July 25th, 2008. He left behind a wife named Jay and three kids name Dylan, Logan, and Chloe. Randy was born in Baltimore, Maryland. He is known for his creation of Alice software, virtual reality research with Disney imagineers, and his inspirational speech “The Last Lecture”. He was an American professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University. Randy was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in September 2006 and then in August 2007 he was given a terminal diagnosis with 3 to 6 months left of good health. He gave an inspirational speech at Carnegie Mellon University on September 18th, 2007. The speech has became very popular and currently has over 12 millions views on youtube. This alone says a lot about the speech. If there have been over 12 million people that have viewed the lecture on the computer, it must be very good.

During Randy’s last speech he was very happy, humorous, and shared inspirational life lessons. The lecture he gives is to his kids and it is about achieving your childhood dreams. It was based upon if you had to give a last lecture before you die, what would it be. Randy runs through all the experience he has gone through in his life and how the people and situations have affected him. There are two ways that Randy could have gone. He could have been depressed and upset, or he could cherish the time he had left and make it what it’s worth. He decided to look at his death as a positive thing and cherish every moment he had left. He does not look as this situation as unfair but as the way the world works. He uses a quote to sum this expression “We all stand on the dart board, but a very small amount of us are going to get hit by the dart called pancreatic cancer.” This quote explains itself by saying that being hit with this illness is just the way the world works. Some people are going to get sick and die and he is one of those people.

Throughout Randy’s speech he uses personal stories, quotes, humor, and life lessons to get his point across of achieving your childhood dreams. Randy uses personal stories that all sorts of people can relate to. There is a story where Randy was in football practice and his coach was riding him all practice. There was nothing Randy could to right in the coach’s mind. After practice the assistant coach goes up to Randy and says “Coach Graham rode you pretty hard today didn’t he” and Randy replied “Yeah.” The coach says back to him “that’s a good thing. When you are screwing up and nobody says anything to you anymore, then that means they have given up.” The whole general idea of this story is to make Randy realize that when people are on your case and correcting you, it means the care about you and want to make you better. A lot of people can relate to this example in many different ways other then in sports. This makes the audience think about times when people are on your case and that they are doing it for a reason.

Randy persuades his audience to achieve their childhood dreams. He uses life lessons and quotations to make people want to change and live their life to the fullest. An example of this is "It's not about how to achieve your dreams, it's about how to lead your life, ... If you lead your life the right way, the karma will take care of itself, the dreams will come to you." This is an example of Randy telling the audience a quote and making them think to themselves. There are many different thoughts that could be going through their minds. He uses his example of being very sick to make people realize how lucky they are. One example he says is to put yourself into his position. Think about how it would affect if you were told that you only have 3 to 6 months left to live. It really puts your life into perspective for yourself and makes you think. One day you could be here and the next day you could be gone. During Randy’s speech he uses humor to keep the audience attentive and interested. He does not want his speech to be a sad speech and all about him but rather what do with your life and to be grateful for what you have. He is positive through the whole experience since finding out about his diagnosis. People look at this as very inspirational because he does not curl up in a ball and dwell on what has happened. Instead, he is positive about it and makes the most out of the rest of his life. At the very end he sums up his speech and the type of person he is. He says he did this speech for his kids and to teach them life values.

A View into the Flaws of U.S. Immigration Laws, by Clay Danielsen

2011-02-18T22:52:00.004-07:00

A table scattered with bite-sized cupcakes and informational pages greeted us as we arrived. A small intimate circle of no more than 20 people fit snugly in suite 1800 in the Driscol Bridge. We all gathered to hear two speakers give their tales of immigrating to the United States, and their thoughts on current immigration reform. Speaking was Richard Froude, a British immigrant in his eight year in the states currently applying for citizenship, joining Mr. Froude was Dr. Miguel de la Torre, an illegal immigrant from Cuba and now current United States citizen. Mr. Froude began the festivities with a quick recounting of the trials and tribulations of attempting to navigate living in America from visa to visa and attempting to gain duel citizenship. The keynote speaker was Dr. Miguel, who briefly touched on his experiences of immigrating, but focused more on highlighting the flaws with the current U.S. immigration policies. What ensued over the next 30 or so minutes was a very opinioned, radical, and one-sided presentation on the current front-page topic. With everything that happened in Arizona, and the new proposed immigration laws for Colorado, current discussions on immigration reform are obviously extremely relevant. The rhetorical situation was ideal, but it was Dr. Miguel’s emotional delivery that made his speech so persuasive.

His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.

After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.

Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.

Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.

His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.

After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.

Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.

Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.

Susan Thornton Hopes to End Abuse, by Skylar Anderson

2011-02-18T22:25:00.003-07:00

The cycle of domestic violence is seemingly endless and statistics seem to show a gradual increase in the number of reported domestic violence cases today. But why do we often find ourselves hitting the ‘channel’ button on the remote every time a news reporter blabs on about a new case of these crimes? Domestic violence has become such a prevalent issue in our society today that we each write it off as a too-complicated, common happenstance. It is easy to write off the issue as too difficult to think about, and move on with our lives. The Denver Post’s Susan Thornton aims to bring attention to the “Women’s Crisis and Family Outreach Center” in Douglas county, which is a safe shelter for battered women. She hopes to push the citizens of Colorado to think about domestic violence again, and to help get battered women the help that they deserve. Susan Thornton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade her readers to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center.

Susan Thornton opens her argument with “We know a lot about domestic violence,” using the word “we” to include all of her readers (Thornton). She grabs the attention of the reader by referring directly to the target audience. The reader will either choose to identify with Thornton at this point, or will doubt her claim, feeling falsely addressed. In order to restore certainty in those who may doubt her assumption that everyone knows a lot about domestic violence, she moves on to talk about common beliefs about domestic violence. She mentions how children exposed to violence at home tend to be more hyperactive, stressed, throw more temper tantrums, and are more likely to commit suicide or repeat the cycle of violence in their own families later on in life (Thornton). Now that the audience is aware of the common ground ideas about violence, she ponders, “We all know [these common beliefs], so why do we as a society do so little about it?” again using the word “we,” to suggest that ignoring domestic violence includes everyone. This is her call to action, and request for a sense of collective consciousness within society members. By widening her target audience with the all-inclusive “we”, Thornton surely also hopes to catch the attention of the battered women who choose to remain quiet about struggles at home. Maybe the abused will be able to feel a sense of a commonplace with the rest of the world when Thornton places us all in the same category. And this commonplace could also give the battered women the sense of community and belonging needed to come forward and seek help from the Women’s Crisis Center.

The use of inductive reasoning—that is, using a number of smaller facts to prove a larger point—also contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. As mentioned before, Thornton uses a few common beliefs early in the development in order to gain a commonplace for her audience to agree upon. The opposition argues that since so many domestic battery cases go unreported, it is a lost cause to help those who do not want it. But then she blows the opposition out of the water and points out that domestic violence is costly for taxpayers as we pay for cops who do respond to domestic calls, and is therefore an issue that needs to be resolved through awareness and the implementation of more safe shelters (Thornton). Everyone pays taxes, which is why we should care: because domestic violence cases take money out of our pockets.

Thornton’s most effective persuasion technique demonstrates when she alludes to the recent case in Aurora where a husband drowned his wife and then hanged himself. This image is gruesome and painful for most to even think about. It also forces the reader to feel the wrath of domestic violence and shine light on the safe haven the Women’s Crisis Center provides. She states that up to “90 percent of the homicides in the past 11 years in Douglas County have been linked to domestic violence,” which means that out of all the crimes reported, nearly all of them are related to domestic violence (Thornton). This demographic is shocking and is impetus enough for the reader to advocate for more safe centers for battered women. She mentions that suicide rates are much higher in children that are raised in households with lots of violent tendencies (Thornton). No parent wants to be responsible for the death of his or her son. The thought of someone killing themselves over conflict within the household is sickening enough to allow families to end the violence, or seek help through the Crisis Center.

Thornton first establishes a connection with her adult audience by throwing some grim statistics about children from violent households. Children are the future of our nation, and when many suffer from hyperactivity and depression because of brutality at home, everyone worries about the future of the youth. She addresses everyone directly and asks us all to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center to help end the shockingly high numbers of domestic violence that exist today. To those who disagree and feel that battered women usually do not come forward, Thornton also says that the Crisis Centers save the county $1 million in court and jail costs that could be used for other critical causes. Maybe some battered women will come forward and seek help from the Crisis Center in response to support from the general public. Thornton hopes that the next time a case of domestic brutality is reported on the news, instead of reaching for the remote, we reach out into the community to support those in need.

Thornton, Susan. "Thornton: Shelter Helps Break Cycle of Abuse." Denver Post. 6 Feb. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.

Immigration in a New Light, by Alice Xu

2011-02-18T21:42:00.006-07:00

I went to a conversation on Thursday, February 10. The topic is about immigration. The reason why I am interested in this topic is because I am an international student here in the U.S.. After I graduate I have to facing the same problem with Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, which is stay here or go back to my home country.

Froude is from England. He came to the U.S. to visit when he was young, and he also visit Denver to found out if there were anything he wanted to do there. Finally, he finished his master degree in Colorado University Boulder campus. After he got his master degree, he went to university of Denver to study Theology.

Froude said, F1 visa which is student visa only last for a specific years for a student. Therefore, after he graduate he has to have a job or get married. Froude wanted to live in LA, but he knew that should be so different from England. Then he found a job as a productor of TV shows in LA. Therefore, he got the working visa and his employer pay for the application. However, this time he has to do the whole process by himself, because nobody would tell him what to do and how to do. After several years, Froude met his wife, who is an india, but move to the U.S. when she was one year old. At that time, his visa just got expired. Therefore, he has to do something. Get marry with his girlfriend, or back to England. He knew marriage is a serious problem, so he cannot get marry because of the visa. Therefore, he began to work in different company as different worker, just for the working visa.

On 2007, he finally married his girlfriend, and he felt that was a right decision. After he got married, he needed to apply a green card. However, he really did not know how to apply it. So he found a lot websites about how to apply green card, but those won’t help. Then he made an appointment with NSCIS. This appointment worth three thousands dollars just for 10 years green card. Also, it was just a permanent one, so it could be take away anytime. Because the application fee is so expensive, therefore he and his wife take it very seriously. At the day that they made an appointment to apply visa, denver was snowy heavily. They thought the department should be closed at that day, but they were not sure. Therefore, they tried to catch the bus to the department. They waited for half an hour but no bus come. Then they realize everything was closed that day. However, they still afraid that the NSCIS was open. Therefore, they drove their small car in dangerous situation to apply their green card. When they arrived, there were a lot people standing outside the building. They realized that the departement also closed that day. He said, everyone knew that the place should be closed, but they just wanted to make sure their money was still useful for the appointment.

Froude’s speech made the listener felt that to stay in a foreign country is a very hard thing in the life. His experience made me felt that I still have a rough future need to overcome. Now is just a beginning.

The Last Lecture of Life and Lessons, by Cailie Murphy

2011-02-18T21:35:00.004-07:00

Professor Randy Pausch from Carnegie Mellon University lectured to 400 people. This last lecture of his was held on September 18th, 2007, and was called, “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”. This lecture informed his audience about his pancreatic cancer that is taking over his pancreas and that he will die in just a matter of short months. Randy presented himself as someone invincible and healthy as can be. He stood confident, energetic, cheerful, and hilarious.

As Randy begins his lecture, he has the audience laughing and engaged. He walks on the stage with complete confidence. He does not seem unhealthy but rather strong. His humor is presented from the moment he walks on to the stage. He first shows the cat scans of the ten tumors that are in his tumor, and that he is living his last three to six healthy months left of life. Most people would try to get sympathy from the audience but Randy says that even though he has the best doctors trying to treat him, he can’t change the fact that he has pancreatic cancer. He just has to respond to it and that in life no one can change the cards they are dealt. He then explains to the audience that he is not depressed, not in denial, but just aware with everything that is happening to his body and life. He has three beautiful young children and a loving spouse; so he is happy with the life he is able to live at this moment in time. Randy engages the audience right from the start by talking about his good health. Randy explains how he is probably in better health and stays in better shape then most of the audience. He then shows the audience by making a joke following with about ten pushups he does on stage. Not only does he do regular pushups but pushups with only one hand as well as claps in between each one. During this section of the lecture the audience is laughing extremely loud. Randy knows how to get the audience involved by his actions and humor. After he talked a little bit about his life and family, he points out the main topics of his lecture. He is not giving this lecture to talk about cancer, wife and dreams, or spirituality and religion because it already consumes the majority of his life and he will not be able to give the lecture without crying.

Randy’s majority of the lecture went through his six childhood dreams, how to enable the dreams of others, and lessons learned in life. The dreams consisted of; being in zero gravity, play in an NFL football league, be an author in the world book encyclopedia, meeting captain Kirk, winning a stuffed animal, and being an imagineer. He takes about ten minutes for each of these dreams, and pictures and stories of each of them happening in his life. As he talks there is a picture slide show behind him, this enables the audience to see the memories that he is referring too, and allows them to feel apart of his past. Randy achieved every one of his childhood dreams throughout his life, and made sure he did so once he was diagnosed.

During his entire lecture, Randy is constantly moving his hands and brings the audience into his stories by talking in dialogue form between his friends and coworkers. It felt as though he was making sure the audience felt every emotion he went through during his experiences. Another way Randy shows emotion and engages the audience is by changing his tone of voice between the dialogues of all the different people he refers to in his stories. Each person he acts as he changes his voice as well as his mannerisms. This then turns to the audience hysterically laughing and wanting to hear more.

Randy was a teacher at Carnegie Mellon for a Building Virtual Worlds class. He taught this class after experiencing many opportunities in the imagineering job force. This class was all group projects on creating spectacular projects every two weeks of the semester. Randy loved teaching and that his favorite moment about teaching is the bonding the students were able to create with one another. Randy states, “I can’t tell you before hand, but right before they present it I can tell you if the world’s good just by the body language. If they’re standing close to each other, the world is good”. This statement explains that Randy believes that when people bond just by doing a simple project, the world is in a good place and people support each other.

The final section of Randy’s lecture focus on the lessons he has learned. After each one of the lessons he uses his own experiences as examples. One life lesson is to never give up. As Randy was applying for college he got wait listed to Brown University. This was his dream school so every day he would call the admissions office and beg to be let in. This relentlessness gave him his acceptance to Brown and an amazing education. Another lesson he describes is to apologize when you screw up and to focus on other people instead of yourself. He then goes on to explain that the day before the lecture was his wife’s birthday and the focus today was on himself. His wife then comes onto the stage and Randy asks the audience to sing her happy birthday as a cake and a candle is put onto the stage. Even though this lecture is one of his biggest moments, Randy gave the attention to his wife to the entire audience. Randy’s final point talks about the “head fake,” which explains that life is not about achieving dreams, it is about how to lead a good life. By leading life the right way, karma will take care of everything, and the dreams will then appear.

Once Randy said, “Goodnight,” to the audience, they applauded with a standing ovation for 90 seconds. Then after a final speaker finished the lecture, the audience stood for another standing ovation. Randy had all eyes on him for his entire hour and fifteen minute lecture. He was respected by all 400 people in the room and the people he referred to in his speech. Randy gave life lessons, told touching stories, and proved to the world that even though he will be dead in a matter of months, life is a privilege and live like every day is the last. The end can come suddenly, and so have fun and do not regret anything but learn. Randy’s last lecture was extremely powerful and millions of viewers learned from his words.

Denver Mayoral Candidates Gather to Discuss the Educational System

2011-02-18T20:58:00.002-07:00

This week a cut to the public school system was proposed by the governor along with other attempts to balance the budget through 2012. With public school funding hovering around 30% of the overall budget, its no surprise to hear that cuts are coming. Along with other concerns, such as merit pay and forming more after school programs, there is now 350 million more reasons why education funding should be the talk of the town.

Mayoral candidates are gearing up for many debates as the race to be Denver’s next Mayor heats up. High on the list of topics are concerns regarding the quality of the Denver Public School system and proposed reductions to DPS funding. Two issues the new Mayor will definitely be dealing with in the coming years.

On Friday, February 16, KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) hosted the Denver Mayoral Candidates Forum on Education at Riscel High School in Denver to discuss the topic of education in the city. Seven candidates running for Mayor were in attendance as well as the President of the Denver Public Schools Board of Education, Dr. Nate Easley and Executive Director of KIPP, Rebecca Holmes. The event was set to start at 8am and as people started making their way in, it was apparent that the interest to hear positions regarding education was important to students, teachers and parents that made up the audience. The stage was set for the event to begin with 4 tables to seat the candidates and one table for the moderators.

Rebecca Holmes took the microphone around 8:15 to start the event with a quick introduction and on overview of the KIPP programs. Explaining that KIPP is a network of free open-enrollment college preparatory public schools in under-resources communities throughout the United States and offers service in 3 locations in and around the city. Holmes gave a quick introduction to the two moderators and mayoral candidates in attendance before stepping off stage.

The moderators began the discussion with an explanation of the rules and process for the debate. To get things started each candidate was given one minute for a brief overview of his or her background and to state why education was important to him or her. This gave the audience an opportunity to get a sense for who was on stage and hear their motivations to improve the educational system in Denver.

The forum was setup so that the candidates were selected at random and could pass on a question once. The range of questions started out lightly which allowed each candidate to establish a general ethos. Questions such as “when was the last time you visited a school, met with parents and/or teachers?” eventually leading up to the harder questions that tested their knowledge of the current issues and statistics. The forum overall had a wide spectrum of topics which left me with a more rounded sense of each person on stage.

Three candidates stood out amongst the rest for three different reasons. As candidates running for Mayor, one would expect a sense of preparedness, being clear and precise and appealing to the audience. Surprisingly, I took away mixed feelings about the attention given by some of the candidates on stage. Some where there showing genuine interest and others seemed to be there just because the others joined the forum.

James Mejia stood out amongst the rest. He was well prepared and was very precise with his answers, not once repeating himself. Mr. Mejia was one of the few in a suit and tie and always stood up when giving his answers. His demeanor on stage created a sense of respect for to his audience and enforced his attention to the subject. I found myself wondering way every candidate wasn’t showing this level of engagement. Mejia presented himself very well and connected with the audience every time he spoke, giving exact answers to every question.

Ken Simpson took a very different approach. He was very casual in his appearance and responses. His persona was extremely casual for the event, dressed in a flannel shirt and jeans. He quickly establishes a connection with the students with his introduction and directs all of his answers towards them, and often received applause from those in the audience. As the other candidates talked about school principals and teacher performance, Ken talked about better school environments and cleaner bathrooms. Although very genuine, I feel his approach would have been better served if the audience were filled with more students.

Thomas Wolf was the least prepared and seemed the most out of place. Even though Thomas was well dressed and was quick to speak, he came across as arrogant and loud. He was the only candidate to pass on a question and wasn’t able to answer many of the speed round questions regarding the status quo of the system today. Thomas has a background of an investment banker and his responses were structured as if to close a deal which I feel was too much for the audience in the auditorium. His ethos was not servicing his appeal to be the next Mayor of Denver.

To finish up the forum each candidate gave a closing remark and most followed up on answers they gave throughout the discussion. Even though there was a wide range of questions, I feel there wasn’t enough time set aside to answer the questions effectively. It would have been to the benefit of everyone if there were less questions and more focused questions around one or two issues within the system. That way the candidates would’ve had more time to set the stage and strengthen any arguments.

Barbara Bush's Wellesley College Address, by Dish Harris

2011-02-18T20:51:00.002-07:00

It’s June 1, 1990 and a white haired woman in black graduation robes stands on a podium in front of those related to the Class of 1990. She wears purple sashes over her robes, which she will later explain is the color of the Class of 1990. It’s the commencement exercises at Wellesley College. This small all women’s liberal arts college is located in Wellesley, Massachusetts. The girls who attend Wellesley are of the most intelligent and unique women around. The crowd cheers as the women attempts to bring them to order to begin her remarks. This woman is Barbara Bush, wife of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41^st president of the United States, and she is addressing the faculty, staff, board, and students of Wellesley.

Bush opens her speech, like any would, by acknowledging the many different groups in the audience and finishes her opening remarks by acknowledging the guests of honor, the class of 1990. This makes it very clear who her audience is and also sets the stage for the kinds of topics that she is going to talk about. Obviously for this speech, she has geared her ideas towards the women graduating from Wellesley and going out into the world to start their lives. She does an excellent job of being aware of her audience. Not only does she focus on the fact that these women are graduates moving on to a new phase in their lives, but also that they are all women. This fact has a huge impact on the topics she chooses. After acknowledging everyone there, she flatters Wellesley by speaking very highly of it and talking about how it is “not just an institution but an idea”. These comments show her audience that she is well versed in their interests and makes her seem genuinely interested in them and what they want to hear. This helps her to gain credibility with her audience and also opens her up and shows that she legitimately knows what she is talking about.

Bush is also an incredible storyteller and she uses this to her advantage in the speech. She could take the “stand on the stage and lecture about what these women should do to make their dreams come true” path but instead she uses stories and experiences to help her instill the wisdom she hopes to instill in the graduates in the Class of 1990. One of the stories she uses is about a friend’s husband. He is talking about babysitting and his wife tells him that when it is your own kids it isn’t called babysitting. These kinds of stories and jokes bring across the strong message she wants to but also keeps her audience engaged and entertained.

Hand in hand with her storytelling is her humor. This is an exciting time in these women’s’ lives and so again she does not want to stand and lecture them, which would bore them to tears. The humor lightens the mood from all the philosophies she is throwing at them. Within her humor, she also uses examples that the women can relate to. For example, she uses a quote from the movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”. The quote has to do with the fact that life is fast paced and so you must stop and look around every so often or you will miss the joys of life. Not only is this something that is said to everyone when their life is changing but it is from a movie that was current at the time. Because it was so popular with this era, a majority of her audience had seen the film and could relate to it. With the Ferris Bueller example she also uses humor. After her quote when the audience is finished clapping, she jokes that they clapped more for Ferris than for George, her husband. This kind of humor keeps the tempo of the speech upbeat. The fact that she is relatable and humorous helps to bring meaning to her speech in relation to these women.

Bush does an excellent job using the tools of speech giving that she has in conjunction with one another to help give her speech power and meaning. She never uses one specific technique. She always tries to use all the tools she has to engage her audience and incorporate meaning into her speech as well as entertainment.

Immigration Panel Sheds New Outlook on the West, by Tanner Krall

2011-02-18T17:24:00.002-07:00

Immigration is an issue some see as a serious problem in the United States. Immigrants form Mexico and Central America come to our country to take jobs, utilize social security, and take advantage of welfare. Now this is not the belief of all Americans, just a general stereotype that some have chosen to adapt. However, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, a professor of Social Ethics, Iliff School of Theology, is a Cuban professor at the University of Denver who has written numerous books and has first hand experience on the issue of immigration. He himself has been to the deserts of Arizona and helped countless immigrants make the long journey to the U.S. He has a passion for defending the rights of Latino people and feels that they deserve to have what is rightfully there, returned to them.

So what does Dr. De La Torre feel the people of Mexico and Cuba and all Central America have the right to? Hundreds of years ago, The United States went to war with Mexico, or what is now the western portion of the United States that once was Mexico. After the war, The Unites States seized huge portions of Mexican land, perhaps some of the most plentiful land in the whole country. Not only did the U.S. expose them for their resources, but also for cheap labor. Much of the Unites States wealth and power comes from the west in areas such as California where gold was discovered, Texas for oil, and the entire west coast used for shipping. Without these resources, the U.S. never would have been so successful, Dr. De La Torre is here to ensure that this wealth is restored to its rightful people.

Being an immigrant from Cuba, Dr. De La Torre, is lucky to be here in the United States. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was allowed to leave Cuba and come to America without too much hassle. Whether he is happy to have lived here for nearly 50 years is hard to tell given that he speaks of America like a villain. Perhaps a better word to describe his feelings would be a bully, someone who is stronger and more powerful who takes what they want. His tone is not angry, but strong, he is upset about something. What he is upset about, in addition to how the U.S. took the land from Mexico many years ago, is how immigration has turned into a way to kill off those crossing the border. He is upset about the 13-year-old girl who died of thirst and hunger in the Arizona desert trying to make it to America. He is upset about the women who are raped on their way to America and the over 12,000 immigrants who die in both the U.S. and Mexico.

Dr. De La Torre is on a mission, a mission to ensure the safe passage of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. In order to complete this task, he has spent weeks at a time in the very same deserts where these thousands of people die every year. With the help of a team of volunteers, they go into the desert of Arizona and walk the very same trails immigrants from Mexico walk every year. Carrying food and water, the aid immigrants trying to make it to America. Often times they encounter the unfortunate, one of those 12,000 who didn’t quite make it and perish in the sun. And if the sun doesn’t kill you, then the snakes, mountain lions, and other various creatures will. What he asks is “How is it that people are dying in the richest country in the world, the richest country in the world?” As the crowd sits in silent for s moment he passes around a picture of a little girl, the same girl who at the age of 13 died trying to come to America looking for a better life.

Although he is not a Mexican immigrant himself, he does fight for the people of Mexico as well as all people of Central America. He not only fights to keep them alive as they roam the desert, but he fights for what he feels is fair. He doesn’t directly say it, but it is easy to pick up on what he is trying to say. That is that, if the U.S. took all this land from the Mexican people years ago, and they export them for their cheap labor, don’t they deserve some of that wealth? The reason Mexico is so poor is because the U.S. took all their resources to gain its own wealth and power. No wonder much of Mexico lives in poverty and its people die trying to make it to America. In Dr. De La Torres’ mind, when Mexican people immigrate back to the U.S. they are actually coming home.

The title of the segment was “Immigration In a New Light,” which is suiting because that is how I saw it. Whether good or bad, after attending the seminar I learned how one becomes a U.S. citizen, along with how one loses all their land, resources, and power to another country. The seminar was very educational on how difficult it is to become a citizen of this country, both legally and illegally. Dr. De La Torre is an ambitious man who is a savior to people south of the border, whether he is wrong or not is up to you.

DU Graduate Addresses Tragedy and Changes To Come, by Sophie Amster

2011-02-18T17:17:00.003-07:00

Almost every citizen of America can recall the events of September 11^th, 2001 with sadness in their eyes and fear in their hearts. On that day the United States came together to mourn friends, family, co-workers and local heroes. It is hard to convince a country that has just been attacked that their safety is in good hands. When people start doubting the safety net that the government provides for them, it takes a lot of courage to publicly address the fact that there is a weakness in the system. In the aftermath of 9/11, a University of Denver graduate address the Commission about what the government was going to do next. Condoleezza Rice, who received her Ph.D in International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981 was the Secretary of State at the time of the attacks. In a speech three years after the event that America will never forget, Rice addresses the 9/11 Commission and the entirety of the country about the governments knowledge of the attacks and what can be done to preserve our Constitutional beliefs.

Although this speech was delivered three years later, there are still people grieving from loss and a city trying to rebuild itself after such a horrifying event. Towards the beginning of the speech, Rice gives her condolences to those citizens that had lost someone who was involved in the attacks. In some way, this gives her an upper hand because she is reaching for a memory in people’s minds that is an area of weakness, and brings back a time when people had nowhere else to turn except to the higher government power. By bringing up a moment when things were not going well, Rice is reminding the audience of a time when the country was united by tragedy and thus gives them a reason to listen and respect her. It also gives her and the audience a commonplace, because it is something that impacted every citizen. Rice acknowledges the fact that the government was in fact aware that there had been terrorist threats on the United States. We were conscious of the fact that this was happening but, “Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore, or until it is too late,” (Rice) and we were never expecting anything like this to happen. By admitting that there might have been mistakes made by the government and working on a way to prevent future mistakes, it shows that the government has taken a step back and looked at the way they are working and how they can better it. Because this event affected so many people, they would want to know if there was a way to avoid future situations.

Throughout the speech, Rice speaks of a time when we as a country will be able to move forward. She than talks about how changes are difficult to make, especially big changes that are necessary for this situation but how they are usually only made in the aftermath of a catastrophe. People can relate to this on many different levels because people often face a moment like that. For example, a student won’t realize they need help in school until after they have failed a test and although it might be too late to change anything; it gives them the opportunity to avoid it next time. Speaking of opportunity inspires people and gives them the idea that although it may seem like there is no hope, there is still light at the end of the tunnel.

As someone who is constantly concerned when flying and being in places where there are hoards of people around, knowing that the government has altered their policy more to protect their people prevents me from being so anxious. I always want to feel safe in my own home and feel a sense of stability when a woman as powerful as Rice promises to do anything she can to ensure my safety. It gives me and I can assume other citizens the idea that she is exactly like us. Rice, too, is concerned for the safety of the country that she has worked for and fought for.

It might seem interesting that she would give a speech like this one three years after the event when the hype and immediate shock of it has worn off. In this case, she isn’t exactly using the timing to her advantage. However, the fear of another attack is always on people’s minds, so in some ways it is perfect timing to re-address the situation and take partial responsibility for what has happened. She lists off that various positions in the Cabinet and exactly what they are doing to change our nation. She then also gives startling examples of clips that were picked up the summer before 9/11 that were considered terrorist threats. It can be scary to hear actual terrorists making threats towards our home, and even the government was unsure about how to address it.

I think Condoleezza Rice does a very eloquent job of taking responsibility for not being fully prepared for an event like this and pointing out what went wrong without saying anything that might turn the audience against her. She takes a large risk by doing this because people could easily resent her (and the government as a whole) for withholding information from them and not taking the initiative that is necessary to protect the country. At the conclusion of the speech, she describes the choices made after the attacks and promises that they were the right choices for America to make, decisions that will ensure our safety and the safety of generations to come.

Works Cited:

Rice, Condoleezza. "Opening Statement to the 9/11 Commission." Meeting of the 9/11 Commission. United State Government. Washington D.C.. 08 Apr 2003. Address.

A Memorable Speech Lost in Time, by Morgan Behr

2011-02-18T17:08:00.002-07:00

When deciding a rhetorical piece to analyze, I chose ”Message to the Grass Roots” by Malcolm X. “Message to the Grass Roots” happened on November 9 and 10, 1963 at the two-day Grass Roots Northern Negro Leadership Conference at the King Solomon Baptist Church in Detroit. The conference was held at the same time that the Detroit Council for Human Rights held a Northern Negro Leadership Conference in Detroit because the Detroit Council for Human Rights sought to exclude Black Nationalists and Freedom Now Party advocates from that rally. I chose this speech because it gave an in-depth perspective to the radical side of the Civil Rights Movement.

Therefore, this particular rhetorical act intrigued me. Malcolm X’s stance on action in the Civil Rights Movement was that of violent protest, radically different than Martin Luther King JR.’s stance of non-violent civil disobedience. Malcolm X pointed out, “Our society, but more importantly America as a whole has a very serious problem.” The serious problem that he pointed out is that black people are not wanted by white society. By persuading his audience that there was an urgent need for social change and to no longer have a non-violent stance, Malcolm X encouraged them to turn and fight. He was able to persuade the black community to start a revolution against their “common enemy.” He felt strong action may be his only option left. Thus, he addressed the audience of non-Muslim African Americans as instigators of change, able to empower the Civil Rights movement and pave the way towards racial justice.

Consequently, because Malcolm X represented the frustration of the community at that time through his speech, it became one of the most significant speeches given in the time of the Civil Rights movement. Within the speech his purpose is to convince the black community to come together, yet through his extremist views on the use of violence, he is essentially alienating many of the people in the black community. Also through his use of violent examples in his speech it tells us that the Civil Rights movement struggle in America had reached its low point. This is the case because Martin Luther King Jr. failed to desegregate Birmingham in the weeks before the speech was given. Also the Southern Leadership conference was in financial trouble and was not taking any action. This made the Negros of the south frustrated with the non-violent approach of the Civil rights movement and they decided to take their own course of action. These events helped Malcolm X gain support for his violent approach to the Civil Rights Movement. He showed his audience through his forceful tone and motivational words that he would do anything to gain rights as an American citizen.

He motivated his audience by telling them “revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that get in its way. . . No you need a revolution.” His use of “bloody” and “hostile” shows his violent approach. In his speech, Malcolm X motivated his audience further when he encouraged his audience to stand up for their rights through black revolution. Malcolm X expressed his encouragement when he said,“ When you study the historic nature of revolutions . . . You may devise another program, you may change your goal and you may change your mind.” Malcolm X is responding to the non-violent approach of other activists within the group by saying that when you look at a revolution, a revolution has never been a revolution without violence. He is using specific rhetorical word choices invoke motivation within his audience.

In his speech “Message to the Grassroots” he also used a forceful tone when speaking to his audience. He showed his forceful tone when he said in his speech “ So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you . . . there’s no such thing as a non-violent revolution.” In the sound bite of speech at this point he pauses and then raises his voice. This change is voice emphasizes his rhetorical choice of a forceful tone.

In the end his speech became memorable because he created a connection to the audience. He connected to the audience through his appeal to pathos, which in turn helped his appeal to ethos. He gave is speech to almost all black and non-Muslim, so he could not create a connection with the audience on a religious level. Instead, he connected to his audience by appealing to their feeling of frustration through his use of select words. An example of his use of select words is when he said, “They control you, but they never incited you or excited you. They control you, they contain you, they keep you on the plantation.” Malcolm X is telling his audience that the society is doing just enough for the Civil Rights Movement to keep them quiet, but not really fixing anything. Therefore, he uses his personal rhetorical connection to the situation to invoke pathos within his audience. In turn he creates a connection with his audience by showing that they are one community. He show this when he says, “ we have a common oppressor, a common exploiter and a common discriminator, but once we all realize that we have a common enemy, then we unite- on the basis of what we have in common.” Malcolm X is showing the audience that they are community who share the same beliefs and need to come together as one. By showing this he uses rhetoric situations to invoke ethos within the audience. These were often a tactic used by many speakers in the Civil Rights movement, including Martin Luther King Jr.

Malcolm X’s “Message to the Grass Roots” had a lasting and meaningful effect on Civil Rights movement. In his speech he gave us an in-depth view to the radical side of the Civil Rights Movement. Through the motivational words and forceful tone in his speech he showed us his rhetorical use of ethos and pathos. He then demonstrated that it motivated the audience to make a change and start a revolution. The speech then effectively responded to the situation surrounding it by giving the audience hope that even with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in trouble, they can still continue on the path towards racial justice. Most importantly, through his speech he was trying to get people to take more immediate action.

Marc Brandenburg's "Deutsch-Amerikanishe Freundschaft," by Mike Kieper

2011-02-18T16:17:00.002-07:00

The Denver Art Museum hosted Marc Brandenburg’s first solo exhibition in the United States, which included around 30 drawings from numerous private European collections. Brandenburg’s drawings resemble photographic-negatives, in which black and white tones are reversed. The exhibition is subtitled “Deutch-Amerikanishe Freundschaft,” which translates to “German-American Friendship” in English. Perception, truth, and reality are the major themes explored by Brandenburg as he links personal experiences to politics and popular culture in his drawings.

Brandenburg’s use of black and white tones resemble snapshots that combine aspects of realism and transfiguration in attempt to give permanence to a contemporary view of reality. The viewer feels as though they are looking at the photographic negatives of the artist’s life, as the brighter tones seem to leap out toward the audience while the darker tones project a distance between the intense moments captured on the white paper. This style of drawing gives the artist an ethos appeal as the audience associates the artist with real photography despite the abstractions of the artist.

There is an evident kairos appeal that is felt in Brandenburg’s works due to his style of drawing and realistic scenes which incorporate elements of event culture. Public demonstrators, fairgrounds, and avid football fans are just a few of the inhabitants of this bizarre depiction of reality. The contemporary drawings of popular culture force the viewer to question whether the subtle abstractions in the drawings are in fact realistic or not.

The audience, unlike most rhetorical events, is widespread and undefined as anyone familiar with popular culture can see the parallels drawn between our world and the world that is created in graphite. Almost any viewer can recognize some aspect included in Brandenburg’s drawings, such as iconic figures like the late Michael Jackson, and therefore relate these components to their view of the world as it appears in contrast to what is depicted the art.

The Marc Brandenburg exhibit is only on display in Denver until February 20^th, 2011. The resemblance of his works to that of photographic negatives embodies the personae that he tries to project. His drawings capture intense moments in which the audience is forced to separate the realistic elements from the abstract and as a result, question the nature of our culture as a whole. The ideals of perception, truth, and reality are unified in the detailed white and black tones that portray Brandenburg’s world.

The Rhetoric of Immigration, by George Cooper

2011-02-18T14:29:00.003-07:00

I recently attended a forum discussing the harsh realities of our nation’s immigration system. Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, both immigrants, discussed the modern day difficulties of immigrating to this country. Both relied heavily on appeals to ethos, pathos and logos in order to convey their heartfelt stories and pursue their ultimate purpose of immigration reform.

Upon entering the nondescript room tucked away somewhere behind Jazzman’s Café, I noticed the presence of the presenters immediately. I also noticed their clear differences. Richard Froude was a younger man with a prominent English accent. Dr. Miguel De La Torre was an older man with a heavy Spanish accent. Their foreign accents naturally helped build ethos before the formal discussion even began because it was clear that they themselves had gone through the immigration process.

Froude began the discussion by recounting his story of immigration from London. He discussed the difficulties he faced even as someone who immigrated with financial stability, no language barrier and a similar cultural background. As Froude could claim none of these as obstacles to overcome, his discussion relied heavily on an appeal to logos. Froude discussed the antiquated immigration system of “the wealthiest nation in the world” and the numerous forms, procedures and the sheer confusion that he had to overcome. However, he was always certain to remind the audience every so often that what he faced as a native speaker can’t even come close to the challenges that those with language barriers must overcome. He spent most of his allotted time discussing the exasperating process and its intricacies such as having to complete certain requirements by a certain time in order to avoid having to start the entire process over again. This worked well as I could sense that Mr. Froude’s frustration was becoming the audience’s frustration as he described filling out what seemed like each and every document and form that Homeland Security has every produced.

Dr. Miguel De La Torre was the second presenter. He spent hardly any time discussing his expedited immigration process from Cuba and instead chose to devote most of his presentation to the ethical issues surrounding our country’s immigration policies. He expertly crafted a presentation that appealed to ethos, logos and pathos. As the author of many books discussing the realities of our broken immigration system, De La Torre came with a lot of ethos and brought up many good points that appealed to an audience largely filled with those who had limited knowledge on immigration. First, he set the stage by filling us in on what led to today’s complex immigration problem. He took us back to the Polk era when the United States took much of Mexico’s land and resources. Using logos, De La Torre simplified the issue by stating “If you build a road into my country to take my resources, I’m going to follow that road to chase what is rightfully mine.” Such an appeal seemed to be highly effective as even those who know nothing about our nation’s immigration problem could follow the simple yet sound logic De La Torre used in his presentation.

Continuing on with his presentation, De La Torre primarily stayed away from the present day politics of the immigration debate and instead went on to appeal to pathos. This was a very clever move in that by avoiding politics he was able to prevent alienating anyone whose political opinions may vary from his. He discussed the “Deterrent Factor” and how our government has pushed Mexican immigrants to cross in the treacherous mountain ranges and deserts along the southern border, knowing that many would die and thus, deter others from attempting to cross illegally. De La Torre stated that this is the first time since the Jim Crow era in the south that our government has essentially condoned a policy in which some would inevitably die as a result. Clearly appealing to pathos, De La Torre paused, opened his wallet, and displayed a photo of a 13-year-old girl who died after breaking her ankle in the desert while trying to cross the border with her family. He solemnly stated, “There is something morally wrong when a 13 year old girl dies of thirst and hunger in the richest nation in the world.” As the photo was passed around, there was no doubt in my mind that this part of De La Torre’s presentation resonated heavily in the hearts of the audience. After all, what kind of a human being doesn’t share sympathy with most innocent victims of a fatal problem?

Transitioning back to an appeal to logos, De La Torre ended his presentation by dispelling many myths associated with immigration: Immigrants use our public services for free, take American jobs, etc…. By transitioning back and forth between logos and pathos, De La Torre effectively confronted many elements of the complex immigration debate while still mostly shying away from the politics of the issue.

While both De La Torre and Froude effectively presented a call to action of sorts on reforming immigration policy, neither of their presentations was completely flawless. Froude came across as whiney at points as he complained about the extensive forms, fees and background checks he had to deal with as he tried to complete the immigration process. This was a poor attempt at pathos and I believe it somewhat weakened his appeal to logos. In talking to fellow attendees after the lecture, the general consensus was that it should be expected that prospective immigrants have to deal with such procedural hurdles because immigration is a complex undertaking. De La Torre’s presentation could have been stronger as well. Although facing limited time, De La Torre failed to suggest immigration policy changes and instead only presented us with a call to action. When asked by a member of the audience what the US must do to correct the insufficient system, De La Torre seemed to take the easy way out by plainly responding, “This problem has taken over 100 years to create and will take over 100 years to solve.” Also, De La Torre never once recognized the fact that America can be a great land of opportunity and instead chose to speak of the racism he sometimes faces.

Overall, De La Torre and Froude did a good job of sharing their compelling perspectives on immigrating to America. Their respective passions could be felt by the audience through the utilization of appeals to ethos, pathos and logos. From what I could tell, most who attended the forum left with a greater sense that something has to be done about our broken immigration system.

Gay Marriage and the Catholic Chuch, by Liam Flannagan

2011-02-18T12:33:00.005-07:00

Walking into a Catholic Cathedral is probably one of the more moving experiences someone can feel in his or her lifetime. One does not even have to identify with this faith in order to feel the power the building holds. The strongest thing one notices is the scent which permeates the building. It is the smell of years of incense burning and generations kneeling and sitting between its walls. There is a slight sound of running water as the baptismal font runs on its now electric faucet. The choir is practicing songs for the upcoming mass quietly in their corner. As one makes his way to his seat, he can feel the floor boards compressing under his feet, he can hear their creaks. He sits and sees the high ceiling, painted pink with angels flying about. The delicate designs of carved into the pillars also outline the stained glass windows each of which depict Jesus in some point of his life, most of which have the various Stations of the Cross. The sunset pours in from the west, casting beautiful dancing pieces of light onto the floor. The altar is decorated in green dressings, with the twenty foot crucifix behind it with the golden tabernacle just below Jesus’ feet. The green robes signify that it is the sixth Sunday in Ordinary time, which would really be insignificant if it were not for the readings for that day.

The first reading was from Sirach 15:15-20, the responsorial psalm was Psalm 119, the second reading was 1^st Corinthians 2:6-10 and the Gospel reading was Matthew 5:17-37. Initially, all of these readings appear innocent; they are merely speaking to the population about obeying God’s word, being faithful to the commandments and avoiding sin. However, considering the weekend which this occurs, the one before the Hallmark Holiday (since no one seems to remember it is a Saint’s day) of Valentine’s Day, the majority of theses passages can be, and frequently are, interpreted in a more political manner.

The homily is the moment when the priest can express his interpretation of the gospel readings as well as its place within the context of the first and second readings. Generally, priests use this time and speaking opportunity as a mechanism to preach Catholic teaching (the purpose for which it was originally designed) and sometimes to convey a set of political beliefs.

Many church-goers, especially the more moderate set in the Catholic faith, have a tendency to dislike when the priest uses his position to push a political agenda. Many people believe that the church is a place to grow closer to God, not a place to push the political system and the way a “good Catholic” should vote.

The father began by citing Sirach, saying, “If you choose to keep the commandments, they shall save you. To none does God give license to sin.” He emphasized this idea of free will within the Catholic Church, but stressed that in order to get to heaven, one must freely choose to do God’s will.

He then moved onto the second reading where he quoted, “We speak a wisdom to those who are mature, not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away.” At this point, the priest moved away from the lectern and began pacing the ground in front of the altar. He moved his hands and spoke with conviction, as if his words were irrefutable. He was preaching to a crowd of Catholics who are taught to stay quiet throughout mass, not utter a word and the idea of calling the priest out is so ludicrous that no one even says it is something unacceptable because everyone just knows, you will probably go to hell for doing such a thing.

And then he quoted the gospel, “Remember what Jesus said at the beginning of our gospel reading today, ‘Whoever breaks the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven!’ So no matter what people in their ivory towers say, the truth is that God counts all of his rules! To include even what people believe to be a small and minute detail of the bible.

“And remember that final line of our gospel, ‘Let your yes mean yes. Let your no mean no. Anything more is from the evil one.’ Once again, those ‘scholars’ in their towers believe that there is an intricate story behind the argument for gay rights. Well, I tell you they are wrong. And these ‘civil unions’ are just the wolf in sheep’s clothing. The answer is simple: gay marriage is immoral.”

He went on to say that in order to get into heaven, one must respect all life; therefore, physically abusing or verbally harassing gay people is inexcusable. This did not mean, however, that we must teach our children that it is “okay to be gay” because then we will suffer for our teachings as much as the children will suffer for their sins.

People in a church have a tendency to listen to the priest and remain throughout the entire mass, regardless of what he might have said. At this particular mass, many people rose up near the end of his homily and made their way to the door. This is generally the passive way of stating that they did not agree with the message of the priest’s homily. This, however, is about the only chance for open disagreement on has inside a mass.

The priest stands above the congregation, he has a microphone, and all eyes are on him. Through the law of papal succession, he has received his spiritual authority directly from Jesus Christ. Most people within the church would believe that the human being is flawed, meaning that the priest can make mistakes, but his message is not because it is taught throughout the church, all the way back to Rome, then all the way to Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Despite disagreement some may or may not have held towards his homily, only a select few left the church.

The mass setting enables a priest to convey his point without any opposition. While this is important to being able to preach the meaning of a gospel from the point of view of the Catholic Church, occasionally the priest will let his personally biases in the way and preach what he thinks a gospel means rather than the official teaching of the church. This too is important because the gospels are meant to be catered to a group of people in a certain place rather than one interpretation across the globe; this increases a person’s ability to relate with the gospel. But when the priest uses his power to preach a political position, he is abusing that power because he is no longer preaching the message of the gospel which is love but rather preaching a political agenda.

Activist Judges on Same-Sex Marriage, by Josh Goetz

2011-02-18T12:24:00.004-07:00

On the 11th of February Scott Barclay from the University of Albany gave a presentation on the situation and reason behind there being no activist judges on the issue of same-sex marriage. The meeting was held at the University of Denver and much of the audience was political science professors and activists for same-sex marriage. A nearly even group of men and women made up the audience. This group of well versed scholars was his target audience, since I am not an expert on the issue of same-sex marriage I found his presentation to be rather dry and too in depth for my understanding. There were only about fifteen people who came to the presentation. Scott Barclay was introduced as a very productive and interesting scholar that had published many works in the field and he offered an experienced
opinion on the topic.

The mood of the lecture was developed through the rhetorical situation and the physical features that were present. Before the presentation the lights were dimmed and each person in the audience introduced themselves and their experience. The audience was then set as an educated group that Barclay was expected to woo. The room was very dark and the audience sent mixed messages. One woman was eating her lunch while he presented so in between his points crunching was heard. Other people in the audience were nodding after his points and occasionally would shoot a dirty look over to the oblivious woman eating. Barclay himself was wearing a suit as other men in the audience. He was clean cut and wearing a khaki colored suit and a dark red tie. The way he was dressed showed that he took this presentation seriously. After Barclay was finished with his PowerPoint he opened the floor up to questions. One man asked Barclay to further explain a theory using a theory that he had presented using the state of California as an example. Before the man had even finished his question Barclay was walking towards his computer and changing slides on the PowerPoint. His insincere actions showed disrespect to the man who he had been trying to convince. The woman finished her lunch and asked a question regarding a local issue and offered a way that she thought would be fitting to move the issue forward; he once again cut her off and blatantly denied her idea and substituted it with his own opinion. After his reaction to the two questions being posed, the audience seemed more hesitant to ask questions.

Barclay appealed to the ethos of the audience by his seeming professional and experience on the subject. The introduction of Barclay from a representative from the University of Denver and a little bit of background information tried to ease the audience into trusting him as a valid source. At the start of Barclay’s presentation he passed out a fifteen page article that he had written reporting on all the relevant cases on this topic. He said that he would be able to answer any questions on any particular event after his presentation. The forty five minute speech earned nods and questions from the audience on both specific examples and general theories. Barclay’s proposed that there were no activist judges for same-sex marriage. He did not blame this on the courts but the relationship between the legislature and the courts. He challenged this relationship as jeopardizing the efficiency and the legitimacy of the law making and enforcing system. The link between these two branches enables both sides to step out of the line of fire and bounce the responsibility of decisions back and forth.

Barclay offered an array of information, statistics, and analysis of old documents and past judicial examples to support his reasoning that there are no activist judges because they tend to reflect the legislative decisions. His use of statistics and specific examples helped to develop a stronger argument. Without strong background this argument is hard to create because it is so complex. The relationship between courts and the legislature is challenging to establish without analyzing multiple past cases. Barclay’s evidence supported his claim and he was able to better sway his audience. His examples were deeply imbedded in the knowledge of the situation and they were too complicated for me to follow and understand fully. Maybe since I was not his target audience the rest of the people he was trying to convince were more able to follow his ideas and his examples. I feel like more background on the topic at the beginning of his PowerPoint would have been a good investment to appeal to a broader audience. A slide or two could have easily caught me up on the topic while not boring those who are better versed on the topic.

The rhetorical situation was established through the amount and relevance of the cases being analyzed. This debate has been alive for forty-five years, and within the last fifteen years there has been a shift in the popular initiatives. There is a large possibility of appeal to pathos in this topic. Those who support same-sex marriage are usually very strong in their opinions. This is not an issue that people take lightly from either side. The lack of pathos in Barclay’s presentation severely decreased his effectiveness and was an area where he could have been much more persuasive. His presentation was strictly based on the court decisions and legislation on the topic. He used a specific slide that had every change in policy or important court case on same-sex marriage for the last fifty years. His examples were very impressive and thought provoking on his argument, though if he was to introduce an appeal to pathos his argument would be much stronger.

The introduction to the presentation set up the speaker as a person with a high level of expertise on the subject of same-sex marriage. His level of experience did not help him to relate the information to the entire audience effectively. Barclay finished the presentation on a negative note because of the way that he responded to his audience’s concerns and interests. He came across as just presenting evidence and did not take advantage of the possibility of appeals to pathos that could have greatly strengthened his argument.

"Immigration in a New Light", by Adam Pettyes

2011-02-18T11:20:00.003-07:00

Walking into the room, there were chairs laid out in a circular pattern; very similar to how an anonymous meeting would look. I was immediately concerned I was in the wrong place. It turned out, I wasn’t.

On February 10, 2011, I attended a presentation on immigration. The title of the event was called “Immigration in a New Light”. Giving this presentation was two immigrants who came to America for different reasons. There was also a third person that contributed as well. She introduced the two speakers and gave a short introduction of what this event was about. While walking to the location, I expected a large presentation setting. I had expected a stage and possibly a PowerPoint as well. This was the opposite of what happened. The speakers did not stand up. They were not on a stage. They were a few feet away in the same type of chair I was sitting in. Only 28 people attended this event. This type of set up had a different effect on me than a large auditorium would. I felt closer to the speakers. It was more of a personal story telling than a boring, distant feeling lecture. This was a more persuasive and effective setting.

The first speaker was Richard Froude from England. He told his story of how he came to the United States and the troubles he faced along the way. He came to the United States in 2002 to start his master’s degree in Boulder. In order to do this he needed to apply for his first of many visas. He went on to explain the struggling events that occurred while applying for all of his visas and the high prices of each. He commented on the complicity of immigrating to the United States. He explained, “I am from a place with a very similar culture and I speak the same language. I can’t imagine coming here and not being able to understand anyone and having to figure everything out by myself.” This shows that he knows what it is like to go through this, but even he can’t imagine the difficulty of navigating through these unknown situations when the language is completely foreign. Though this story was very interesting, I did not think it was very persuasive. The message was very vague. It was very descriptive, but the purpose of telling it was not made entirely clear.

The second presenter, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, did a much better job at making his position clear. Dr. La Torre is an immigrant from Cuba. He is a professor of Social Ethics at Illif School of Theology and is also the author of the book “Trails of Hope and Terror”. This alone builds his ethos. He knows what he is talking about and this gives the audience a reason to listen. Instead of talking about his personal experiences right away Dr. La Torre began by giving a brief history lesson about Mexico and Cuba. He explained that much of the United States used to be Mexico. When looked at this way, he argues that Mexican’s have a right to this land. He said that Mexican’s use the fraise, “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us.” This gives a pathetic appeal and a logistic appeal as well. Dr. La Torre attempts to create a connection between his audience and the Mexican people by explaining their situation differently than many U.S. citizens would normally hear it. Dr. La Torre mentioned NAFTA and how this operation caused farmers in Mexico to shut their farms down and caused larger farms to become rich. NAFTA is a free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Though this has allowed for easier trade between countries, it has put many Mexican farmers out of business. He used these examples to show that the United States has taken much of the wealth from the Mexican people. His message to his audience was, “what do we owe the people of Latin America?” In his mind, a portion of the wealth of this country belongs to the people of Latin America. So, immigrants who cross the Mexican border are not trespassing, they are claiming what is rightfully theirs. This was one of his major claims.

Because of Dr. La Torre’s passion, he also works with a non-profit organization whose mission is to help immigrants crossing the border. He volunteers with his youth group giving immigrants food and water. Dr. La Torre uses his experiences to create his most effective rhetorical appeal, the appeal to pathos. Dr. La Torre passed around a picture of a 13-year-old girl who died in the desert while trying to come to the U.S. She was inside the United States border when she died. Dr. La Torre says that there is “something morally wrong if a 13-year-old girl could die of thirst and hunger in the richest country in the world.” This shows the irony and also the tragic truth of events that occur inside our borders. This example sticks with many people because of the common place in our culture. No one wants to see innocent children die. Children are precious to us and many people have children of their own. Seeing the picture of the girl triggers emotional ties within each person. He begins his argument by showing this picture to get the audience on his side and then goes on to explain all of the terrible things that can happen to immigrants while traveling to their new homes. He uses more personal stories to back up his claims. This is effective and causes the audience to believe him and his judgments.

Though Dr. La Torre did a better job of expressing himself and his opinions, he did not have a solution to this problem. His entire speech was for the sole purpose of informing his audience of the problems that are occurring and to get his audience on his side. In this regard, he did a great job. I was expecting a proposal for a solution, but Dr. La Torre did make a valid point when saying that this problem has taken hundreds of years to develop and it could take about a hundred years to be resolved. With his objective of informing his audience, Dr. La Torre successfully portrayed the issues regarding immigration into the United States. This event was informative and gave different views on immigration than would normally be heard in this country. The arguments were persuasive for the most part and Dr. La Torre gave many elaborate stories and evidence for the accusations he was making. Overall, this experience was educational and interesting.

From the Smallest Seed Grows the Greatest Kingdom, by Lauren Rice

2011-02-18T09:57:00.003-07:00

The lights went dark on Sunday night at Denver Community Church as the last chord of the guitar faded away from the worship song. As one light on the stage warmed, a empty clay pot sat lonely. The young pastor, dressed casually in kakis and a button up collared shirt walked on stage with a large bag of soil. In complete silence, with all eyes on him in full attention, the pastor poured the soil in the pot, dropped a seed in the soil, watered it, then stood and waited. He sat, starred and waited, then watered it again, then waited. What seemed like minutes past in silence, the pastor just looking at the pot sitting unchanged on the ground. The audience did not move. With a confused look on his face, the pastor picked up the bag of soil and looked at the back as if he was reading the directions. He then put the bag down, sat in a chair and watched the pot again. Time went by in still silence. Then, on the projection screen above the stage showed the Bible verse Mark 4:26-27.

“The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then and the full grain. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come…The kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown in the ground is the smallest of all seeds on earth, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches…”

The silence was finally broken. Sitting on the chair, looking directly at the pot, the pastor began to speak. Forceful yet hushed he said, “Faith is in waiting”. The pastor used the next 35 minutes speaking passionately and teaching the already believing audience. Because those in the room were believers, the pastors lesson gained instant validation as he unpacked a parable of the Bible. The Pastor on this night was a teacher, historian, philosopher, theologian, speaker, friend and family member as he unpacked God’s word for the young Denver audience to understand.

While many church services rely heavily on the ethos of the pastor and pathos of the situation, this service leaned heavily on logos. The pastor took the audience through a rational argument full of historical and literature references as well as personal stories.

The Pastors argument hinged on making the audience believe that the kingdom of Heaven was like a mustard seed, the smallest of seeds. At first thought, this seems like a paradox, comparing the smallest seed to the greatest kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven.

He began by referencing the great cedars of Lebanon. These giant cedars became the symbol of a great nation and spectacular kingdom. Not even the Great Red Wood Forest in California could compare to the majesty of these cedars. However, the pastor quickly drew the audience’s attention to Isaiah 10:34, which says, “He will cut down the thickets of the forest with an axe, and Lebanon with its majestic trees will fall”. The greatest trees in the world do not symbolize the greatest kingdom, rather the smallest seed does. While the cedars are majestic, if they are cut down once, they are done, gone, will remain a stump, and cannot regrow.

However a mustard seed, although small, is enduring. He told a personal gardening story of his when he tried to plant mustard seed just to see what would happen. What happened was that he cannot get rid of the plant and it is currently taking over his garden, no matter how hard he tries to get rid of it. For whenever the plant is uprooted, little seeds fall from the leaves and replant. So when mustard seed is uprooted, it only comes back stronger. He directed the audience to the history of the church. Whenever a group tried to eradicate the Christianity, it only grew stronger, and spread further.

With the audience taking in every word, the pastor sat back down on the stool and looked at the pot of soil again. He said, “The key is to plant the seed”. Using examples from his own life, he spoke about forgiveness, faith and ideas. He said that out of fear of being hurt, we don’t plant the seed in our heart. The process is slow, much like the growth of a plant. We told the audience that we could sit in the building all night and we would see no difference in the pot, we would not see any growth of the seed he just panted, however it is growing, just slowly. And while it is scary and it does not come without pain to plant a seed, once it is planted, it can never leave you, for the Kingdom of Heaven is within your heart and the Great Creator will help you carry it through.

To finish off, the Pastor told the audience that on the side of the room, there were pots of soil and seeds. He encouraged the audience that if they would like, they too could plant a seed at that very moment, as a reminder and a first step to whatever goal they were trying to achieve, whether it be to overcome addiction, grant forgiveness or begin a project.

Sunday night, the young yet diverse audience of Denver Community Church heard a message broad enough to encompass everyone and yet specific enough to provide hope, faith and a possible solution to whatever problems may be in their lives. Through history, personal stories and the parable of the mustard seed from the Bible, the pastor used logos instead of the typical appeal to pathos in order to deliver his message.

Works Cited

"Plant the Seed." Church Service. Denver Community Church, Denver. 13 Feb. 2011. Lecture.

Judicial Activism and Marriage, by Jessica Starr

2011-02-18T00:49:00.002-07:00

I attended Scott Barclay’s discussion, Why aren't there activist judges on the issue of same-sex marriage?, based off of his research into judicial activism and legislation on Thursday, February 10th. Barclay addressed the issue of same-sex marriages and the lack of activist judges by using various types of rhetoric, mostly the pathos, ethos, and the inherent kairos of this issue. By using solid techniques while using an effective presentation method, Scott Barclay was able to appeal to his audience about his views and academic overview of the issue.

Barclay focused on addressing the various educational and interest backgrounds of his audience by using easy-to-understand language and presentation methods. The presenter was addressing the small voluntary audience in a university conference room. This choice of venue made sure that only persons associated with the University of Denver would come to the conference, and that a smaller audience would have more freedom in asking questions and providing insight into the topics of activist judges and same-sex marriage. As a person in the audience, I did not feel like I was just a ‘face in a large crowd’- I knew that I was a member in an audience whose opinions and views were appreciated.

The fifteen person audience was generally composed of staff and faculty of the University of Denver, with only two or three students attending. The majority of the faculty was in the social sciences and studies at the University of Denver, and may have had biases in affirmation of the topic. Students had lesser knowledge of the topics at hand, and were at a disadvantage at understanding all the research that the speaker provided. Scott Barclay was dressed in neutral tones (light tan suit with shirt), which didn’t give him power colors. He may have done this on purpose to not seem imposing but to educate his audience on the issue. The suit choice also made him look more like a lecturing professor, which added to his credibility as an academic.

Barclay was introduced in a short speech, introducing him as an academic speaker and a prominent researcher in social sciences issues. The speaker introduced his argument and research by introducing his background in education and by giving the audience his fifteen-page article, titled, In Search of Judicial Activism in the Same-Sex Marriage Cases: Sorting the Evidence from Courts, Legislatures, Initiatives, and Amendments. Scott Barclay’s research and education gave him ethos because he commanded a sense of knowledge and leadership in his topic. The audience trusted Barclay in his knowledge and him leading into the topic.

Scott Barclay also made use of a PowerPoint presentation while he was speaking, which would simplify and clarify points that the audience may have missed. The PowerPoint presentation also introduced visual elements into the discussion, which illustrated the constantly changing views of the public, legislation, and courts, which reflect the current kairos of the decision of same-sex marriage. The PowerPoint showed that as time has gone on, there has been more legislation and judgments in favor of same-sex marriage. As time goes on into today, we see the kairos of the situation come to a tipping point.

While the speaker presented about the lack of activist judges, he stayed stationary and off to a corner in the room, not coming towards the long table that filled the center of the room. Barclay would occasionally gesture with his hands, but would only move to change the slides of the PowerPoint and to recheck his points. This didn’t seem like a strong technique because the attention became more focused on the visual presentation of the PowerPoint than the speaker. This was only saved due to his imposing height and his strong Australian accent, which kept the attention of the audience.

When the presentation concluded, the general mood of the audience was of interest except for the students who had chosen to attend. The majority of Barclay’s arguments were based in social science knowledge, and for students such as myself, much of the background knowledge went over my head. I know the gist of the issue, but nothing of the activist judges and what exactly the roles they played in government. The staff and faculty that attended did ask questions pertaining to the clarification of some of his points, but none of the students asked questions. In order to improve his argument to audiences, Barclay should tailor his presentations to different types of audiences and educational backgrounds.

Immigration in a New Light, by Jenn Etzel

2011-02-17T19:19:00.003-07:00

On Thursday February 10 I attended the lecture, “Immigration in a New Light”. The discussion took place in Driscoll and was in the form of a small circle discussion with about 12-15 people. Kristen Andersen, who is the University of Denver Chaplain Assistant, ran the lecture. Andersen began the discussion by saying that immigration is not just a political issue, but it is also a moral issue. She then introduced the two speakers, Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, and then Richard Froude took the floor first to tell his story followed by De La Torre.

Dr. Miguel De La Torre was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. as a refugee on April 3, 1961 at the age of six. He answered the question, why do you think I came? To this he said, “some might say to take services or steal, but all of these are naive and wrong.” The real answer is that he was forced by U.S. foreign policies of Latin America. This way of asking his audience a question, De La Torre clarified why he came to the U.S. He also knew that some of the people he may be speaking to could think that he came to the U.S., “to take services or steal.” By including this as part of his answer he is speaking to all audiences and understanding that there are two sides to the argument of immigration.

In his talk, Dr. Miguel De La Torre gave some history of Mexico border issues. By starting his story off with some history of the border issues that ultimately affected him, he was very creditable. De La Torre knew what he was speaking about and everyone listening definitely knew that through his great understanding of Mexican border issues. Mr. De La Toree is also creditable because he helps men, women, and children along the border so he experiences the border issues on a day-to-day basis and sees the horrible things that are happening to immigrants trying to cross.

One story that Dr. Miguel De La Torre told was about a young girl who was raped and died while trying to cross the border. He stressed that something is morally wrong when a 14-year-old girl dies in the richest country in the world.

Also, the story about the young girl was definitely a perfect story for his specific audience. Since mostly young men and women were at the lecture, the story definitely helped get his point across and hit closer to home with us younger students; it was perfect to catch the attention of everyone. The story was a great use of pathos because he pulled out an emotional response.

De La Torre also made clear why he was in the U.S. in the first place. He says he is here because he is following all his resources that were originally stolen from him; he says this is what I owe to Latin America. Dr. De La Torre also says, “this house was built on my cheap labor.” He believes that he owns his house and deserves it because it was built because of his work. This point that De La Torre makes also creates an emotional response from the audience. He really puts things into perspective about what immigrants, like himself, bring to the United States. The people who he previously referred to as naive and rude, may feel an emotional response to De La Torre’s point.

Another interesting part of the lecture was when Dr. Miguel De La Torre made the point that even though he has been a United States citizen for some years, he would more likely be stopped by a border patrol over Richard Froude, who is only a lawful permanent resident. Dr. Miguel De La Torre has the dark skin, dark hair look that many people on border patrol view as an immigrant and often question as being illegal. Although, in reality, Richard Froude who is white and does not look like an immigrant until you hear his British accent, is not even a U.S. citizen yet. Both De La Torre and Froude agreed with each other on this idea.

A small way that Dr. Miguel De La Torre relaxed the mood of the somewhat argumentative topic of immigration was by using humor. This humor was very slight and just got a chuckle out of the listeners. By doing this everyone’s attention seemed more focused and interested in what he was going to say next.

Dr. Miguel De La Torre did a great job in telling his story because it was interesting and kept everyone’s attention throughout the entire time he was speaking. When compared to Richard Froude I think that De La Torre used more rhetorical emphasis in his story and had more of an argument about immigration, although both were interesting to listen to because it gave two very different perspectives on immigration.

Being A Father Is A Privilege, by Joey Glassman

2011-02-17T18:51:00.001-07:00

A podium on a stage. The country’s leader is perched at the podium, looking out to a patient audience. Barack Obama is here to speak about being a responsible father. Father’s everywhere were about to be made either guilty or proud. It is important for fathers to be with their kids, and Obama advocates this message.

After recalling his prior speech given last father’s day, Obama opens up with posing a question to his silent audience: how can we come together to ensure that fathers meet their responsibilities. What are these responsibilities? The president states that fathers are first teachers, mentors, role models to their children. Children follow the example set forth by their fathers. If a father is pushy at times, it is likely that his child is to exhibit similar behavior. After all, “like father like son”.

Barack Obama then brings a more disturbing idea to the table. Not all fathers are present for their children. In abandoning their children, fathers abandon their responsibilities to their children. They can’t be mentors, they can’t be teachers. The example that these cowardly fathers leave for their children is one that their children will be sure not to replicate. Obama would know, as his father abandoned his family. Obama didn’t leave his family in the lurch. It is understood best first-hand that not having a father leaves a hole that can never be patched. He didn’t have that role model; that mentor to look to. The president tells his audience that his father taught him one valuable lesson. Be there for your family. And he is.

In telling his audience about his lack of father, Obama helped affirm to his audience that he knows what he’s talking about. The gap between Obama and the audience abates in size. It’s one thing to study a subject, and observe from an outside perspective. In this case, there’s nothing like experiencing the real thing. Only then can one have the truest sense of knowing what not having a father is like.

The president brings up a good point. It isn’t the government’s job to keep kids from looking for trouble. The government can’t force a student to pick up a book and read. The government can’t make a child do their homework; provide guidance. That is the father’s job. Father’s must step up.

Being that he is such a prominent figure, when Obama states something like this, people are bound to hear it. The more people that hear this, the more that people are going to agree and strive to do so.

Sure, it’s easy to become a father, says Obama (physically, that is). It’s much harder to live up to the responsibilities of being a father. This is especially true when times are tough. But fathers don’t need to be perfect. The most beneficial thing a father can do for his child is to be present. Go to that soccer game; attend the performance that has your son in it. It’s extremely important to children to see their father’s at their events. It is in this respect that sons and daughter feel that their father cares. To reiterate, you don’t have to be a superhero. It’s the little things that matter the most. In saying this, Obama makes being a father easier than some think.

To strengthen his ethos, Obama admits that he’s made mistakes as a father. He’s missed that soccer game, skipped the parent-teacher conference. But he knows that fathers don’t have to be perfect to be perfect fathers. Nothing is more gratifying than being a father.

Obama reaffirms that the president of the United States can’t force fathers to be good to their kids. After all, it isn’t a right, it isn’t a burden; it’s a privilege.

Poetry for the Soul, by Renee Andrews

2011-02-17T13:29:00.005-07:00

In the heart of Denver’s Art District on Santa Fe, settled between an Ethiopian restaurant and an art gallery, Yellow Feather Coffee simmers. It is an intimate café filled with the lingering scents of fresh ground coffee beans, Peruvian hats, and weed, which the sounds of scratchy vinyl records accompanied. As I sipped on my latte and picked at my gluten free oatmeal raisin cookie, seven o’clock pm slowly crept its way into the back of the shop. Highschoolers, college students, and left-behinds swept through the door and into the back room to take their seat. The bear with a green tongue on the wall peered down at the small, young, crowd sizing this week’s Wednesday literary talent. Un-interpretable whispers, the clacking of keys on a laptop, and the rustle of page turning permeated the room.

Suddenly, from the front of the room (the confessional they called it), syllogisms of celebrity and sexy Halloween costumes streamed from the lips of a longhaired boy clad in a poncho, torn jeans, and Converse. So began the open mic poetry slam.

Rants, professions, confessions, warnings, memories, history, love, hate, insurgencies, and inspirations came one after the other like bullets from a high-power machine gun. On impact, some brought laughter, some joy, some hallelujahs, some pain, some sorrow, some a whole new thought. Whether they had memorized their work or not, these kids, these poets, entrance you and do not let you go even after they have finished reading.

As each reader stepped up to the confessional, it was clear that each had a different story. It was also clear, however, that they all shared a story as well. While their clothes reeked of different backgrounds, their passion screamed of common threads. The clothes on their backs ranged from Goodwill to Cherry Creek Mall. Their poetry was not based on money, but their clothes gave an idea of the experiences and privileges each had seen in their limited pasts. For some it was obvious, by their clothes and words, they had lived under a bridge at some point in their life. For others, their clothes and words told of hardships in the slums but that they were able to climb out and live the way they had always dreamed. For a handful, rebellion seeped through. Perhaps they lived a life of luxury, but their beliefs and feelings pushed them to step outside the realm of which they live and defy the “norm” of their community.

It could not have been more explicit what common threads existed between poets: hardship and emotion. No one gave themselves an introduction with the exception of their name and the title of the poem, but the words in the poems were plenty sufficient to give a listener an idea of who the reader was. No poem was a work of another, all were pieces that the readers wrote themselves, and each told a snippet of who they were.

Frank, a twenty (about) year-old Latino-American, spoke first of the Day of the Dead, a Hispanic holiday dedicated to deceased loved ones. The poem defined Day of the Dead and then transitioned into recollections of his late grandparents. His greatest regret is never knowing their childhood, “Both of you together are 128 years of history, and I only knew 20 of them. So I am guilty for not knowing the rest…” Through this poem, Frank shows he has great compassion and this lets his listeners connect with him. The topic of this particular poem is also one that most people can relate to: the loss of a grandparent. Frank urges the audience to get to know their grandparents as best they can before it is too late. Frank’s diction of his experiences subtly nudges the reader to act upon these experiences so that they may not have regret. Through a short history of Day of the Dead, the extreme compassion, and regret, Frank’s ethos was that of a knowledgeable and kind-hearted person to which the audience could easily relate to and learn from.

Poetry comes from the heart of a person and is generally written for that person’s experience alone. Although they may perform and share their writing with others, the relevance does not have to appeal to the audience, only to the poet. Some poetry, however, addresses current events in a particular situation. Brando, another performer at Yellow Feather Coffee, for example, discussed the current state of performance poetry in regards to poets who, “have written good poems in the past… and now are in the place where they think that whatever they write is completely perfect.” For an audience of a poetry slam (lots of poets), this theme could not be more relevant. Many audience members are constantly surrounded by other poets and could relate quickly to the ideas pouring from Brando’s mouth. In this cynical “rant that disguises itself as not being a rant,” Brando gave explicit examples of the ridiculousness of what some poets are writing; phrases that appear to have great meaning, but really the poet just wrote down some words that are confusing and meaningless; and yet, their audience still treats their work as gold.

“16- The pigeons on the steps of the cathedral where I married my suitcase are sunburned. Benefits. 17- Figure out what that means, I have no idea but I know that its brilliant. After all, I wrote it!”

Brando also offered his definitive beliefs about the poets to which this poem was about. “There are thousands of people speaking for all they’re worth, like this is the last poem in the world while your spit on the sidewalk is treated as gold.” The laughter and snapping of fingers in the room during this poem was louder and more profound compared to any of the other readings. Looking around the room, it was easy to tell that each of the poets present knew and could attest to everything Brando was talking about; this was Brando’s goal. The relevance of this poem was clear to the poets and it seemed as though this relevance would never die.

It is impossible, at a poetry slam, to resist emotions. Some poems instill emotion into the listener far more than others, but each still give you some sort of feeling. The amount of emotion the audience feels rides on the presentation and theme of the poems being read. The emotions are different for each audience member, depending on how well they can relate to the piece. During Frank’s second poem, about his sister, fear evaporated from each of the listeners. From the first word of this poem, it was obvious that Frank feels strongly for his sister. It was unclear what tragic event happened to her in the past, but it was crystal clear that Frank was ready to do anything to protect her from anything harmful happening again.

“When forensics try to decipher what happened, the incident report will read ‘velociraptor victim.’ They will not know it was due to these fists. I will channel samurai, Aztec, knight, pick an arc angel to collect your remains; your fate has been decided. God handed your mortality to me: this will be your end.”

Upon closing this poem, the audience was silent before they remembered to clap. Whispers of profanities buzzed in the room and, finally, to break the pleasant discomfort for some slight comic relief, someone said, “So, I for one am not going to make his sister cry.”

As the last words of the last poem floated about the room and the clapping started to praise the last reader, the longhaired boy clad in a poncho, torn jeans, and Converse stepped up to the confessional. It was easy to see the excitement pulsing through his veins hoping that the crowd of about fifteen would want to continue the slam. A few murmurs of approval flew around the room but were quickly drowned out by louder voices saying they wanted to have something to read for the next week. Hugs and praises passed from listeners to readers, and readers to readers, as everyone trickled out the front door.

One of the last ones to leave the shop, I opened the door and stepped onto the sidewalk with nothing to say. My jaw was hanging past my knees so words could not form. The power and emotion that had just come from each of the seven poets was stuck in my mind blocking the Broca’s area of my brain with the exception of, “Wow.” The skepticism towards the slam I had arrived with was so quickly squashed and I could not wait to return the following Wednesday. Everyone knows bad poetry, and this by no means was so. This poetry, an impeccable art form, was filled with every aspect of rhetoric and can teach you about so many things you never knew about before. Rhetoric does not only exist in politics and analysis, but is profound in art as well. If you have never been to a poetry slam, I cannot recommend a better place to go, Yellow Feather Coffee, for a first time experience and cannot urge more strongly to attend.

Boulderite Criticizes New Snow Shoveling Policy, by Josh Goetz

2011-02-08T23:29:00.001-07:00

Daniel Brigham’s article challenges the new snow shoveling policy in Boulder. Brigham proposes the social benefits that come out of shoveling. The new policy gives homeowners in Boulder twenty-four hours after the snow has stopped instead of just until noon. In the middle of winter with plenty of storms to come this is the perfect time to discuss the change in policy. Brigham looks at the issue from a social standpoint. Generally, people get so absorbed in their day to day schedule that they do not get to know their neighbors or stay in touch with them. This article establishes the negative effects of the new policy which will further hinder our social lives and decrease neighbor relations.

Brigham questions whether having to shovel before noon is really worth talking about, and his answer is that there is more to this policy than what meets the eye. His opinion is that in today’s society there are few bonds that bring neighbors together. According to Brigham “Tragedies get us out of our wired cocoons and crossing the street to talk to each other” (Brigham). This statement seems very morbid, but holds to be very true. This appeals to the audience’s pathos because no one wants to think about how they come up short in the time that they spend with those around them, but in the high paced life we live, it’s reality. People think of shoveling as hassle and not an opportunity to catch up with their neighbors and do something thoughtful. Brigham does not blame people for living busy lives and getting caught up in them, instead he proposes a way that people can improve their neighborhood involvement with a small amount of time and effort.

Brigham appeals to ethos and pathos in his quote defining the reason to shovel, “You shovel for those around you. For the always-in-a-hurry delivery men, for moms pushing strollers, for people late to the bus stop, for basset hounds and other low-rider canines who need a good walk.” (Brigham). Colorado is such an outdoor state, we live healthy lives and take advantage of the mountains that we have at our disposal, these outdoorsy people often take their dogs with them to enjoy the outdoors. By using dogs as a reason to shovel many of his dog loving readers will be more inclined to climb out of bed a little earlier to clear a path for them. Brigham uses the new policy as a leg-in to poke at the bad neighbor who doesn’t uphold their section of the sidewalk. His argument doesn’t focus on them shoveling but more their good neighbors pitching in to initiate the trend.

Brigham did not do a very good supporting his thought on why the policy has changed, and how it gives law enforcement more time to write out tickets and warnings. By developing this part of his argument he would be able to support his ideas that people do not need more time to shovel their driveways, that it is just easier on officials and that is what caused the change in the policy not the bad apple neighbors wants being met. By further explaining why a time extension would give officials more time to write tickets and issue warnings seems opposite to the logical because then people have more time to finish shoveling before they are issued tickets. If this point was further explained it could highlight how the officials are under strict time limits to enforce the policy and without change they will be expected to perform under unfair conditions and the general public would be more supportive of the new policy. This however would go against the stance of the writer and although the point would support the opposite side it would give the writer more credibility for acknowledging the other side of the argument.

Brigham’s article on the new shoveling policy displays the issue in a different light by referencing the social opportunity that is being taken away by the new policy. Through appealing to the pathos of the readers through the commonplace that everyone wants to be a good neighbor and the reason why we shovel his point is made quite convincingly. The lack of background on the reason for the change in policy weakens his argument. The argument made throughout the paper is very interesting due to its opposite stance from most everyone. Hardly anyone would rather wake up and worry about something so trivial but Brigham turns it into a social criticism that appeals to his audience because of its call for social improvement.

Littwin's Humor Affirms and Questions Obama's State of the Union Address, by JoJo Cuchiaro

2011-02-08T23:24:00.001-07:00

In this article Mike Littwin analyzes the president’s State of the Union speech, and Obama’s very deliberate words used to appeal to his actual audience- the American voters. Littwin uses the recent State of the Union speech given by Barrack Obama as the rhetorical situation for this writing. He also references other memorable public speeches given by Obama, and similar media tactics used by him and previous presidents.

Mr. Littwin begins the article with a bold statement that Obama wants to win the future. He admits that he does not know what the president means by “win the future,” but he claims that he knows why he said it. This proclamation both draws the reader in, and successful establishes his ethos as an intelligent rhetor.

As the article progresses, Littwin makes himself out to be a humorous, average all-American guy. He pokes fun at John Boehner wearing “a blindingly purple tie,” as a sufficient gesture of bi-party support, while it is a common place to Americans that Boehner is infamous for disagreeing with the opinions of the president. Also, he mentions how Obama talked about this being our Sputnik moment. Then very wisely he adds that if the reader is too young to know what that is, “that’s why America invented Google.” Mike Littwin adds personal touches such as these throughout the piece, which make his article enjoyable to read; readers can’t help but agree with him.

Furthermore, in his sarcastic writing style, Littwin very harshly speaks of how U.S. citizens are easily swayed by the overwhelming optimism that protrudes out of our presidents, both current and past, in public speeches. However, in doing so, Mr. Littwin never writes in superiority to the reader, instead he admits, and probably exaggerates his like flaw as an American. He references “we” throughout his piece, classifying himself as one of the many that is persuaded by the irresistibly upbeat speeches given by the president. For example, he writes, “When presidents — nearly all presidents — deliver their State of the Union speeches, the instant polls generally range from good to great. We root for the guy behind the lectern.” Here, among other places, he notable references himself as a fellow American.

Moreover, he does not criticize the president for playing the ever-so-common “optimism card” for he realizes that it is exactly how one is to win elections, and the American hearts and minds. Mr. Littwin goes even further in using past examples to support his claim. He notes, “Reagan had morning in America. Clinton had Fleetwood Mac.” These presidents, Obama included, all use similar tactics to win over the United States population, and thus their votes.

Littwin only encourages readers to reflect on the information, more or less hope, which is being given to them almost subliminally by the words of our country’s leader. Through humor, sarcasm, and specific examples, he successful attains the attention of his audience, and opens their eyes to a difference side of a topic that all American citizens can relate to.

Editors of Denver Post Supports Colorado Dream Act, by Monica Duffy

2011-02-08T23:20:00.001-07:00

do not contribute by paying taxes like a typical citizen. At the same time, there is the question of whether or not their children should benefit from the state. Recently, the Denver Post published an editorial that addressed this debate. The author claims, “Rewarding lawbreakers is not in our best interest, but children should not suffer for the actions of their parents.” This writer makes a bold statement but uses many rhetorical devices to strengthen his argument throughout the article.

The author argues that children who have graduated from Colorado high schools but are technically illegal immigrants should be able to receive in-state tuition from the state. The writer effectively uses kairos to intensify his argument. The issue of illegal immigrants is a hot topic in society right now, as well as the issues with our economy. The author argues that by giving in-state tuition to these students, it will ultimately benefit the country economically by generating intelligent and fully educated young men and women. This is a perfect use of kairos because the author recognizes the nation’s main concern for the economy and offers an unconventional solution. Normally many people might oppose this suggestion, but because of the timing of this situation, they may give a second thought to the writer’s proposed idea.

The author of this editorial also successfully uses ethos, pathos and logos to further strengthen his argument. Throughout the entire article, the writer’s voice seems to appeal to most people. His writing is casual and everyday which makes it easy to read and to understand. This ultimately benefits the author’s claim through the use of ethos by creating an implied character that is engaging to most readers. The author presents himself in such a way that he seems knowledgeable about the subject in a personable manner. He creates a persona that is relatable to many different types of people in order to effectively persuade his audience.

The debate of whether or not to allow illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition is not an emotional argument by nature. However, the writer incorporates ideas that appeal to his audience emotionally in order to deepen his reasoning through the use of pathos. The writer uses moral ideas and premises to persuade his readers gradually throughout the article. He talks about how children ethically shouldn’t be responsible for their parent’s actions or punished for their parent’s mistakes. He creates an argument that has a moral basis yet is also strengthened with solid evidence and effective proposals. The author also strategically ends his editorial by leaving his audience with a moral dilemma. He states, “The situation is not ideal but morally, and economically, it makes sense for Colorado to help those who want to help themselves.” The author especially intensifies his argument by placing this last thought at the end of the editorial to leave his readers with something to think about. Clearly, this writer successfully incorporates the application of pathos into his argument.

To completely formulate an effective line of reasoning, the author integrates the use of logos throughout his article as well. Not only does he have a good sense of character and appeal to his audience’s emotion, he tops it off by including reasoning and extrinsic evidence. The writer includes factual evidence that creates a compelling debate. At one point, he references the Higher Education Access Alliance and conveys information about Colorado state funding. Throughout the other parts of the editorial, he constantly mentions evidence about the government and about bills regarding this issue. By using this reasoning and extrinsic evidence, the author makes a compelling argument. His readers are more likely to trust his opinions because his ideas are not solely based upon personal beliefs; they are backed up with actual facts and substantiation.

Throughout this entire editorial, the author makes use of rhetorical devices to completely formulate and support his opinions on such a controversial subject. The writer recognizes that most people don’t agree with his ideas. Therefore, he specifically addresses the counter points that most people would make against his argument. This writer proposes his position on the subject of illegal immigrants receiving in-state tuition successfully by using kairos, logos, pathos, and ethos lucratively throughout his editorial. By creating a credible and appealing persona, engaging readers by using emotion, and backing everything up with reliable factual information, this author forms a well-argued debate that has the potential to convince the public of his opinion.

Quillen Expresses Concern about U.S. Health Care System, by Cam Seglem

2011-02-08T23:16:00.002-07:00

On Thursday January 27 the Denver post ran an article published by Ed Quillen called, “Quillen: People-killing profits” in which he argues the hypocritical nature of our society in terms of health care. In this piece Quillen expresses his concern with the fact that the health care in our country is inferior compared to other countries regardless of the fact that we commit a higher percentage of our GDP to health care. He further develops his argument by saying that if we “Feed people junk food and keep them fat and lazy. That's good for the economy. Then Americans have to buy medical care, which further jacks up the GDP” (Quillen Denverpost). He obviously has issue with the cyclical nature of the system especially in an area that could be changed for the better. In this article Ed Quillen’s piece is not particularly long but, he does a good job using rhetoric to support his argument. For the most part he wrote deductively because he makes a case of A+B=C, feed people junk food to keep them fat and lazy + the benefits on the economy = the purchase of health care and the increase of our GDP.

Rhetorically speaking he uses his own personal experience through the example of running into problems with our current health care programming, which allows him to have credibility in what he is talking about. The logos and pathos of his argument can be defined as, here is my example of the problems with health care and this is why everyone should be upset with this current situation. Through the using of his own personal experience he draws a connection with his audience that has experienced something of a similar nature. His example was that he was trying to wait till 65 for his Medicare to kick in but, due to circumstances of his vision fading he needed new glasses. He found out that he could not get prescribed new glasses unless he got his diabetes under control, in which he was oblivious to having in the first place. Quillen ended up having to get regular treatments of laser eye surgery to help fix his vision due to his diabetes. His treatment now is eat healthier and walk more. His pathos is very effective because it gives his reader something to relate to. Even if his reader cannot relate to this situation he presents it in a way that you would feel it is plausible for this same event to happen to you.

This is not a long piece but, its usage of kairos and pathos become apparent from the start. The kairos of this article is health care which is a huge topic of debate in our country today. The health care issues was one of the major issues that Barrack Obama was going to deal with once he was elected president. This piece is relevant to the topic because one man’s hardships with trying to get a new pair of glasses displayed a lot of the flaws and hypocrisy that are present in the current health care debate. The hypocrites are the people who want change but to not lose anything. Quillen supports this by saying, “Any attempt to change our ways or our health-care system gets attacked as "job-killing regulations" or the like. But hey, we need to keep generating those "people-killing profits," right?”. Quillen blames this flaw on the industry juggernauts like McDonalds who would see profits drop and jobs lost so obviously they do not want this to happen. He strongly supports that change has to occur, more so to ensure peoples health does not deteriorate because of low quality food and a country that is entirely concerned with profits and its GDP.

As with any good rhetorically written piece your argument has to be provocative and interesting. Quillen through his use of kairos and pathos accomplish both of these requirements. He is addressing a topic that is very prevalent in debates today making his kairos effective. He then relates to his audience through his own personal experience as an example showing strong pathos. Through his pathos he is trying to connect with the reader on a much more personal level. He clearly lays out an example to invoke the thought process of what would I do in his situation and how would I feel. All the aspects of a well written rhetorical piece are in abundance in Ed Quillens article, “Quillen: People-killing profits”, which make it effective in defense of his argument of the problem with the current health care flaws.

Haley Argues “Ignoring Superman” Will Change the Future of Education, by Shelby Dunstan

2011-02-08T23:12:00.000-07:00

The editorial “Ignoring Superman,” written by Dan Haley, eludes to the film Waiting for Superman and its effects on society. The documentary tells the story of five kids attending inner-city schools and their low opportunities for receiving a good education. The film shows less fortunate parents trying to send their children to charter schools where there are higher passing rates and graduates, unlike the community public schools. The education offered at the private schools will allow these poor kids to succeed in this competitive country. It states that if the education of the inner-city public schools does not change, the future of the children will be a disappointment; one without well-paying jobs. Dan Haley states that this movie “is one of the most important films in years.” He argues that “if you care about the future of our country,” you will watch it. While Haley argues all people should watch this film, the film itself also has an argument of its own; inner-city schools are not receiving the education they need to and it is because of the teachers’ poor teaching.

Kairos refers to this article in terms of its immediate effects to the city of Denver. Denver does have a few inner-city schools that do not have a great teaching staff. While Haley watched the film at a theater in south Denver, it was ironic that parents had gathered in northeast Denver to “debate massive changes being considered for Montbello High School and its many feeder schools. Of every 100 freshmen who start at Montbello, only six graduate and go on to college without needing remedial work.” This issue is happening right now all around the country and something needs to be done to get these children a decent education for their future. The opportunity to do something about it is right in front of us. Recently, a controversial law was approved that made it easier to get rid of bad teachers, or so we thought. Through Haley’s use of evidence, it is proven that only 1 in 2,500 teacher have lost their right to teach after the making of this law. Their teacher unions protect the majority of them from being fired. The issue at hand is to find a way to hire new teachers who will provide a better education for the kids, but also to fire those who are doing just the opposite. In this film, there are both heroes and villains; education founders and creators versus the teacher unions. As the community of Denver, and almost any area in the United States, citizens believe that education is a priority for children. In order to become successful later on in life, the kids today must be taught well. These are the children of the future who will be making the big decisions in the corporate world, running our businesses, or leading our nation. We should want them to succeed now as well. Don’t we all want to be successful? Nobody wants to be uneducated and on their own in this world. The only way to reach that goal is to start at the root of the issue: eliminating and replace unqualified teachers.

Haley begins his editorial with a brief introduction of his thoughts on the film; “I’m no film critic, but I think it’s fair to say a movie has impact if you feel like you’ve been punched in the gut after watching it, or it causes a slight watery, salty discharge to well in your eyes.” This quote defines Haley’s ethos. Through his first sentence, he captures the reader by using a slight bit of humor contrasted with all seriousness. He could have easily said, “this movie impacted me and made me cry,” but his use of figurative language describes his considerate feelings towards the film. At the end of the first paragraph, he adds, “(I don’t cry at movies unless they involve old dogs).” Haley utilizes punctuation, specifically parenthesis, to decrease distance between himself and his audience. Through his use of ethos, he portrays himself as a sincere guy who has feelings towards the education of children. The audience can definitely relate to him and respect his honesty. By beginning in the first person, Haley constructs himself as a trustworthy narrator. The editor comes straight out and says “If you care about the future of our country, watch it.” This single sentence sums up his main claim for his piece.

Dan Haley not only tries to create himself as an author, but by doing so he connects with his audience. In his use of pathos, Haley demonstrates that he honestly cares about the film and the future of these less fortunate children. After portraying his personal reaction to the film; “I don’t cry at movies unless they involve old dogs,” the readers believe that if a grown man will cry over such a strong important issue, it ought to be worth the while to do something about it. Throughout the article, the reader experiences both sorrowful and shocking emotions. The fact that Haley is informing people of this documentary and the importance of it also give them a sense of hope towards the end. Haley’s ending quote, “but we'll be waiting for Superman forever if we resist the progress underway,” convinces the reader to develop a strong opinion about the situation. They feel almost obligated to not only go out and watch this documentary, but also to do something to change the school systems because they know that it will affect not only their future, but their children’s too.

This “both infuriating and heartbreaking” documentary, illustrates the important issue of not only Denver’s, but the entire nations, education system. Through his use of kairos, ethos, and pathos, Haley argues that if we resist the program and refuse to do anything about it, nothing will happen. We will be here “waiting for superman.” As a community, we need to reach out and do something to help fix this issue and get kids the education they need and deserve to have.

Denver Post Argues for Less Scrutiny of Marijuana Growers, by Chris Kiriazi

2011-02-08T23:06:00.002-07:00

The Denver Post article titled “Reasonable Rules for Pot Growers” does a satisfactory job of convincing its readers. The topic at hand is that medical marijuana growers will need to undergo a biyearly inspection that will determine whether or not they are corrupting the neighborhood around them, and if they should be allowed to stay. There was recently a re-zoning that was passed by the state legislature and it affected where medical marijuana growers could exist. There are some 50-odd businesses that will not be forced to conform, and instead will be under government scrutiny every two years. These businesses will be looked at to insure that they are not “degrading the neighborhood with refuse, noise and crime” (Denver Post). The editors make the argument that it might be wiser and better logistically to only hold these meetings if needed; i.e. when neighbors petition for a hearing when one of these grower’s licenses was up for renewal. They also claim that the requirement of a hearing every two years creates a lot of unneeded government busywork.

As the writers of this article, the editors of the Denver Post used kairos well in this specific editorial. The time is ripe to discuss how medical marijuana growers will soon be outside proper zoning regulations because these regulations were just put into effect. The editors used a current event and put a little bit of controversy into it. Another way that this article is published in a timely fashion is how anything that has to do with marijuana is already tagged as debated and maybe even scandalous. In this editorial, the editors of the Denver Post did not even write one word about whether or not the legalization of marijuana is right or wrong. They stuck to the topic of the new restrictions put upon these growers without getting too opinionated about a different topic.

This piece is written to the general public. It is addressed to citizens of the Denver area that this might be directly affecting, or maybe just people who enjoy discussing such things. The audience is very broad, as anyone who lives in the state of Colorado could be remotely affected from this.

The supporting claims made here were strong. The editors’ focused on logical reasoning. They claimed that “Growers already face significant oversight and rules from the state. Why add more if there is no apparent need?” (Denver Post) The editors reasoned that the only thing that these extra required hearings would accomplish is give another hoop for these medical marijuana growers to jump through. In a sense, it would achieve nothing, while creating a hassle for everyone involved. According to the Post, these inquiries are just completely superfluous. However, the editors were not unreasonable. They believed that if “If opponents can prove that grow operations are boosting crime rates in the neighborhood, or are causing excessive noise, odor or traffic, they could force out the grow operation” (Denver Post).

I believe that the editors’ appeal to logic is their strongest argumentative point. This logic is exemplified in the sentence in the article that states: “Given that the state is requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to grow at least 70 percent of the marijuana they sell, there needs to be some place to grow it (Denver Post).” They tend to lean towards everyday commonsense to support their points of view. One of the commonplaces that they imply is the assumption that all people do not want noise, odor, and crime in their neighborhoods. This is obviously a given, but it is worth noting as the commonplaces are center to the editors’ argument.

Overall, the persuasiveness of this piece is strong. It takes the side that the compromise to let marijuana growers keep their current locations is the correct path to go about what the Colorado government is doing. It uses mostly logic with a dash of sarcasm to convince the reader that the Denver Post’s editors’ verdict is the correct one.

Work Cited

Editor. “Editorial: Reasonable Rules for Pot Growers.” Denver Post 3 Feb. 2011: n. pag. Print.

Denver Post Editorial Opposes Senate Bill 54, by Jessica Starr

2011-02-08T23:00:00.002-07:00

The Denver Post’s editorial, "Leave Immigrant Law in the Desert" (January 27), raises the issue of immigration legislation in Colorado that stems from previous legislation in Arizona. The Denver Post challenges the Arizona law, which has been criticized as targeting the Latino population as illegal immigrants. Colorado now has similar legislation in debate that mirrors the previous law in that the law would, “Allow… to arrest illegal immigrants who are facing deportation, or have been indicted or convicted of serious felonies.” The main question in this law resides in the possible discrimination and abuse of these laws and the conflict that the law could create in the naturally independent state of Colorado.

Colorado as a state has always been naturally independent with the Western libertarian spirit. The state has traditionally been a swing state; there is an even split between the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and independent voters. This independent spirit has entered all aspects of our society, creating a very diverse and multi-cultural environment. When looking at this new proposed bill (Senate Bill 54), the state’s culture and people must be taken into account- how would this law impact the Colorado culture and population, and how would the law be looked at in Colorado politics?

The Denver Post makes the argument that Senate Bill 54 should not be passed because of the term, “probable cause.” This refers to the statement that, “the bill goes a step further than earlier Colorado laws by allowing police to arrest people if there is probable cause to believe they are in the country illegally or if they have committed serious crimes or are facing deportation.” (Denver Post) The newspaper makes the claim that this would affect the citizens of Colorado by potentially making the existing Latino populations targeted as a population living in the country illegally. This would be an invasion of privacy and racial profiling, and would result in complaints and demonstrations against the law and government, as seen in Arizona.

The pathos of this editorial comes from the threats of harassment towards unfairly targeted people in Colorado. Senate Bill 54 could create new cases of harassment by police that would create distress among the citizens of the state. The Arizona protests are easily remembered because of the anguish the protestors felt because the state government was essentially legalizing racial profiling. Why should the citizens of Colorado let a bill pass that would make racial profiling and harassment alright in the eyes of the law?

The ethos in this article reflects the beliefs of Colorado, and how these beliefs influence the Senate Bill. Colorado is motivated to pass this bill due to the increasing number of illegal immigrants that enter the state every year. This number is only heighted because the capital of Colorado, Denver, is considered a sanctuary city, and so gives additional protection to illegal immigrants. By passing this legislation, illegal immigrants with violent criminal histories or are scheduled to be deported can be caught and be given proper legal action. All of Colorado does not believe in the passing of this bill- the author of the editorial vehemently opposes this course of action because, “Upholding the law is the job of government, but symbolic gestures that potentially threaten the civil rights of citizens is not.” (Denver Post) Other Coloradoans share this sentiment, and so make Senate Bill 54 harder to pass.

As for the logos, this editorial speaks and reasons to the readers of the Denver Post by addressing the legal issues in a straightforward manner with background information. The Denver Post makes the case that this issue and bill should not be made by the state while laws we already have are not being currently enforced. Readers understand that, “the core problems of illegal immigration — problems that are beyond the control of states — are dealt with in Washington.” The Denver Post must inform its readers because otherwise the majority of readers would have no knowledge that this bill is being discussed in our state senate.

The kairos of this editorial state that the state government is not the place or in the right time to make these controversial decisions on immigration issues. The time to act on this issue is in the current time, but the state government must defer decisions to the national government. While Senate Bill 54 would cut down on the number of illegal immigrants in Colorado, the social implications of this bill are too high and controversial to implement. The Denver Post strives to education its audience on this issue and does so in an easy-to-read manner.

Editorial: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17222065

Denver Post Argues against Felons in Public Schools, by Harrison Archer

2011-02-08T22:54:00.003-07:00

In an article written by the Denver Post, it explores the current prohibition of felons associating themselves with, or working in Colorado public schools. The argument being made is that even if someone should have a very minor drug charge on their record, which is automatically a felony, should they still be banished from all things that are Colorado public schools. I found their argument very compelling for multiple reasons. These columns often blind me because if these people are qualified enough to write for a newspaper, then it must be compelling, well written, and overall amazing. So, it’s hard for me to not enjoy and write good things about these columns.

I think the author does a great job citing examples, using metaphors, and reeling the reader in the beginning of the piece. The author does a great job in invoking the three terms, logos, pathos and ethos and using them to his advantage. The author clearly feels strongly about this topic and wants to change the readers mind and make them feel the way he does, which is always a great quality in writing: the ability to change the readers mind and get them to buy into what you are making an argument for. In this article, the author takes the topic to heart, and it is clear that this piece isn’t just an objective, which is always a good thing because the reader can tell that the author cares, which overall makes the authors diction, tone, and general point of view much stronger and more compelling. All of this has to do with the appeal to ethos in this piece. The author just does a great job of being persuasive and concise. One reason why the author is so persuasive is because of their status. When dealing with writing he/she is held in a very high regard. The author certainly persuaded me when I read this. This is a topic that I had never really read anything about or thought about it, so coming from an unbiased perspective can really show you how affective the author is in proving his point.

The author has given this piece character; he has given it a face. The author’s usage of pathos in this piece is evident. The author appeals to the reader by trying to relate things to them. When I read the article, I immediately sided with the author because I know people who are in jail, and they are good people. The stand the author is taking is one that is sticking up for people who have had petty charges and have to suffer their whole lives for them. The author believes in second chances, he/she believes in change and the ability to turn your self around. Basically, if this bill was passed, then someone with a minor drug charge couldn’t even be a custodian. The way the author really pulls me in is in the beginning. He begins by siding with the other side while being very vague about what he’s talking about. As the author delves deeper into the topic, you start to sense that he/she has flipped around, and convinced you of the opposite. The way they did this was by appealing to my emotions. The author was talking about how minor drugs charges ten or twenty years ago should not decide someone’s fate, I can definitely relate to that. I can’t relate to it personally, but I know there are good people who have made mistakes.

The author does just as good of a job associating logos in this piece as he/she does the other two terms. The author backs up their claims with facts, things that can be proven which overall strengthen the argument. The author talks about the House Bill 1121, which is what would prohibit felons working in public schools. This article isn’t something that would have to do with a lot of numbers; the convincing has to be done in terms of morality. The author makes you understand and identify with people who have made mistakes. “At the very least, legislators should consider making an old drug conviction- one that happened ten or twenty years ago- to be a condition that could prohibit employment, not shall prohibit employment.”

Denver Post Endorses Use of Red Light Cameras, by Jeremy Noble

2011-02-08T14:36:00.002-07:00

The article that I decided to pick to write my rhetorical analysis of text was on “should Colorado increase the use of red light camera’s.” A lot of people have different opinion on whether there should be red light cameras on the corner of intersection. It has been proven that the red light cameras reduce the amount of fatalities from automobiles. This article is trying to persuade the reader to agree that there should be red light cameras on every corner in Denver. In my opinion the author does a good job at persuading the audience to agree with him that there needs to be a red light camera at every corner. In the article the author uses many different ways to persuade the audience such as pathos. Pathos is the emotional or motivational appeals. After reading the article, the author makes you feel emotional. The way he does is by telling the readers that there are lives that can be saved and we are not doing that. The author uses pathos by describing a story about someone dying at a yellow/red light. If there were cameras at every intersection maybe the driver would have thought twice before going through the light. The story makes the readers feel emotional and sort of sympathetic for the author. This could help the author persuade the reader into agreeing with his argument. Also, the author uses a lot of examples in his article to persuade the readers to agree with him. One example that really makes you think is when the author says “if red-light cameras were installed in all U.S. cities with more than 200,000 residents, the devices would have prevented 815 deaths.” This quotation really makes you think about how this could help society. You could think of it as one of these people that died, could be a family member of yours. If we have the red light camera installed then this may have not of happen.

There is also a sense of ethos in the article. The Denver Post is the main newspaper in Denver. All of the articles and information in the paper is creditable and worth reading. A lot of people respect The Denver Post because of its reputation, which is very valuable. Also, he uses other websites and articles that are creditable to build his argument. The helps build confidence in the reader because they know that the author is in a creditable newspaper and using creditable citation. An example of this is when he quotes The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The author also uses logos to persuade the readers to agree with his argument. There are a lot of facts stated in the article that the author uses such as “The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently produced a study saying the cameras were responsible for saving 159 lives in 14 cities over five years. “Red light cameras are working,” said institute president Adrian Lund. "There are hundreds of people who are alive because some communities had the courage to use this method of enforcement." This is showing statistics that the red light cameras are working and making a difference in the amount of deaths. Through the whole article the author uses logos to get their point across. He uses different statistics from creditable websites to prove his ideas and points.

Personally for me I thought this article did a good job at persuading me to be on the authors side. It made me think about all the lives that could be saved. I also imagined if this was on of my family members that had died in a red light accident. It could have been prevented and they would not be dead. Overall, this is a great article and used the methods of pathos, ethos, and logos to get his point across.

The Rhetoric of Food

2011-02-07T20:57:00.001-07:00

In October 2007 Jim Dyer published “Support Colorado Community Food Projects” where he argues for the importance of a quality government food bill to rebuild local food systems. More specifically he highlights that important food reform in Colorado needs to come from the USDA’s Community Food Projects Competitive Grants program, which gives funds to local communities to rebuild their local food systems as well as “empowering communities to boost healthy eating.” Mr. Dyers editorial is very short but still does a phenomenal job using rhetoric to develop his argument.

Dyer also capitalized on a very crucial kairos for this editorial. Kairos, or rhetorical situation is paramount in the development of a rhetorical piece because it needs to be relevant to the audience now. The fall of 2007 was an extremely important time in the food policy debate because of the widespread issues related to American obesity, and the health care problems that stem from them. The timing was also vital because he was enlightening the audience, on the somewhat unknown, government food bill that taking shape at the very same time. The rhetorical situation in which Dyer published this piece was perfect. He was able to write on an issue that on the greater scale was front-page news, yet focus on a specific part of the puzzle that was current and somewhat unknown. However important kairos is, the writer must still harness it and build a persuasive piece.

Dyer does a great job of establishing pathos with the audience in the very first sentence. He does with an extremely basic sentence; “Think about the federal farm bill at dinner tonight” yet this simplistic nine word prompt addresses every single audience member. He unifies the audience around the commonplace of dinner. His writing becomes more slightly more elaborate after that introductory stand alone sentence, but the pathos he was able to create in his first sentence will keep the audience interested throughout the piece, which is the first step in any rhetorical writing piece.

Dyer does not only rely on pathos in the piece he also utilizes ethos. Throughout the piece he appears to be very knowledgeable on the subject, but it’s at the end of the piece when much of his writing gains credibility. At the bottom it states “Jim Dyer raises sheep with his wife, Pam, south of Durango and coordinates the Southwest Colorado Farm to School project and the Southwest Marketing Network.” As previously stated, his piece showcases his knowledge on the subject, but the “resume” as the end completely validates his beliefs even to the most non-believers. His varied use of rhetorical modes of persuasion creates a well-rounded piece.

Dyers main use of appeals is that of ethos, and pathos, however he does utilize logos as well. His use of data is slim, but he does refer to the $5 million dollars of annual funding received by the USDA, and goes on to explain what the money funds, “several local nonprofits to engage hundreds of individuals, including farmers, children, restaurateurs, retailers, nutritionists, politicians, school administrators and others in a conversation about how the local food system could be rebuild.” Even the single data point does further his ethos in the piece, as many readers want numerical evidence while stating a claim.

Dyers use of ethos, pathos, and logos in his piece, “Support Colorado Community Food Projects” combine to create a well-written rhetorical piece with ample evidence. The topic of food policy if one of great interest to me already, but the knowledgeable yet personable writing style of Jim Dyer would be personable to every audience. His piece was informative while addressing all three of Aristotle’s modes of persuasion, as well as assessable to the wide Denver Post audience.

Reasonable Rules for Pot Growers

2011-02-07T12:03:00.002-07:00

The Denver Post article titled “Reasonable Rules for Pot Growers” does a satisfactory job of convincing its readers. The topic at hand is that medical marijuana growers will need to undergo a biyearly inspection that will determine whether or not they are corrupting the neighborhood around them, and if they should be allowed to stay. There was recently a re-zoning that was passed by the state legislature and it affected where medical marijuana growers could exist. There are some 50-odd businesses that will not be forced to conform, and instead will be under government scrutiny every two years. These businesses will be looked at to insure that they are not “degrading the neighborhood with refuse, noise and crime” (Denver Post). The editors make the argument that it might be wiser and better logistically to only hold these meetings if needed; i.e. when neighbors petition for a hearing when one of these grower’s licenses was up for renewal. They also claim that the requirement of a hearing every two years creates a lot of unneeded government busywork.

As the writers of this article, the editors of the Denver Post used kairos well in this specific editorial. The time is ripe to discuss how medical marijuana growers will soon be outside proper zoning regulations because these regulations were just put into effect. The editors used a current event and put a little bit of controversy into it. Another way that this article is published in a timely fashion is how anything that has to do with marijuana is already tagged as debated and maybe even scandalous. In this editorial, the editors of the Denver Post did not even write one word about whether or not the legalization of marijuana is right or wrong. They stuck to the topic of the new restrictions put upon these growers without getting too opinionated about a different topic.

This piece is written to the general public. It is addressed to citizens of the Denver area that this might be directly affecting, or maybe just people who enjoy discussing such things. The audience is very broad, as anyone who lives in the state of Colorado could be remotely affected from this.

The supporting claims made here were strong. The editors’ focused on logical reasoning. They claimed that “Growers already face significant oversight and rules from the state. Why add more if there is no apparent need?” (Denver Post) The editors reasoned that the only thing that these extra required hearings would accomplish is give another hoop for these medical marijuana growers to jump through. In a sense, it would achieve nothing, while creating a hassle for everyone involved. According to the Post, these inquiries are just completely superfluous. However, the editors were not unreasonable. They believed that if “If opponents can prove that grow operations are boosting crime rates in the neighborhood, or are causing excessive noise, odor or traffic, they could force out the grow operation” (Denver Post).

I believe that the editors’ appeal to logic is their strongest argumentative point. This logic is exemplified in the sentence in the article that states: “Given that the state is requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to grow at least 70 percent of the marijuana they sell, there needs to be some place to grow it (Denver Post).” They tend to lean towards everyday commonsense to support their points of view. One of the commonplaces that they imply is the assumption that all people do not want noise, odor, and crime in their neighborhoods. This is obviously a given, but it is worth noting as the commonplaces are center to the editors’ argument.

Overall, the persuasiveness of this piece is strong. It takes the side that the compromise to let marijuana growers keep their current locations is the correct path to go about what the Colorado government is doing. It uses mostly logic with a dash of sarcasm to convince the reader that the Denver Post’s editors’ verdict is the correct one.

Is Santa Claus Real? by Cailie Murphy

2011-02-07T11:28:00.002-07:00

In the article, “Yes, Virginia,” by Dan Haley, a young 8 year old girl named Virginia O'Hanlon wrote letter to the New York Sun newspaper. Her letter asked if Santa Claus was real or not. She was expecting the Sun to give her the truth, and what they told her was what she was going to believe. Haley then continued to talk about how this topic hit him with his own personal life. The New Hampshire National Public Radio program called Haley and asked him how an editorial would approach this letter. His own 8 year old daughter questioned him about the truth of Santa Claus, "how can he make it to all those houses in one night? How does he get through the glass covering out fireplace". Haley continues with the editorial describing how his own daughter tried to find the truth about Santa Claus. She told Haley that she wants to place a motion-sensitive camera outside her parents bedroom to make sure they were not the putting out the presents. But, she then decided to just write a letter to Santa, asking if he liked the cookies she made him. If the handwriting matched her parents, then she would know the real truth. Haley's daughter frequently asks him if he is telling her the truth and he always replies, "of course". Haley describes how telling your daughter the truth about Santa Claus the magic of such an amazing man is gone. He then used to comparison of banks failing, jobs disappearing, and war arising; why not tell your daughter to realize there are more serious things going on in the world then worrying about the truth of Santa Claus. He went on to explain how he is going to make sure his daughters Christmas this year is just as innocent as it was back in 1897 when the children did not have the opportunity to search the internet or find out information easily. They had a greater imagination. Haley does believe in Santa as long as his last child does. Christmas is all about spirit and believing as well as how a child was born in Bethlehem. His daughter wants to see Santa Claus in his real live flesh in order to be sure that he is alive. Since technology of television and YouTube children are used to seeing everything with their own two eyes. This will make his daughter truly believe.

In the article, Dan Haley’s argument is very prominent. This article states his personal opinion and experiences to help build his opinion on the issue. The issue within the article is about an 8 year old girl named Virginia that wants to know if Santa Claus is in fact real. She writes a letter to the New York Sun and asks them to give her the answer. Haley presented a comical response to this issue by using his own personal experience as a father of a little girl, and how he would face the issue. Not only is his response witty and relatable to the audience, he relates to television such as CSI. He also makes light hearted and relaxed conversation by saying that miracles and believing is the fun part of life. All the readers have believed in Santa Claus before in their lives, so it is easy to relate to the curiosity of Virginia for the truth. The light hearted mood Haley sets in his article is appropriate for this topic and makes it a fun read.

In this editorial the author puts himself into the story by relating his own personal experiences with his own daughter and Santa Claus, to the issue at hand. The issue is that Virginia, the curious young girl that wrote a letter to the New York Sun, asking them to tell her the truth about Santa Claus. The author then takes this issue and presents his own issues he had with his daughter. He brings up this emotional topic by stating, "The question hit a nerve because I have my own 8-year-old "Virginia" at home who started questioning old St. Nick last year." This quotation quickly brings an emotional state to the editorial. It not only makes the reader feel attached to the author in a slight way, it also makes them feel a relation if they have had a similar experience in their own life. Not only does the author relate his life to editorial, he also presents examples of how his daughter searched to find the answer, just as Virginia is. The author’s daughter decided to become a detective in finding out the truth, “she's decided to leave a note for Santa, asking him if he likes the cookies. Then, she said, she'll compare his handwriting to ours.” This personal example of the author brings the editorial a sense of community. Since the author and the issue of the editorial have a relation in its stories, it brings a personal and emotional sense to the piece. Haley writes a strong editorial using examples and bringing personal messages to relate to the readers.

Keeping Felons out of Schools

2011-02-07T11:25:00.001-07:00

The editorial from the Denver Post that I read was called Keeping felons out of schools. This article supports the HB 1121 bill “which would keep convicted felons from working in Colorado schools.” House Bill 1121 would prohibit Colorado schools to employing support staff such as lunch workers or custodians who have felony convictions of child abuse, unlawful sexual behavior, violence, indecent exposure, and drug crimes. All of these besides drug crimes are already in place for teachers. This bill would then prohibit the hiring of teachers with previous drug convictions and allow the firing of current teachers with old drug convictions. The only problem the author sees with allowing the firing of staff with previous drug convictions is because there are many different circumstances that the person could have been under. They may have been convicted of a felony drug crime ten to fifteen years ago, but now they may be completely clean and perfectly capable of holding a support staff position or even a teaching position. Because of this grey area, the author thinks that the felony drug convictions could prohibit the potential of employment rather than it definitely prohibiting an individual of a position. Also, another reason the author thinks the bill shouldn’t be as strict and straight forward is because it will put another burden on the Colorado Department of Education who is already conducting many background checks on those who are applying for teaching licenses. With a little tweaking in some areas the author is hoping the bill will eventually pass through legislation and in the long run ensure the safety of our children.

The editorial has a very calm and collected flow to it, although the editor still creates a sense of urgency about editing the drug conviction aspect. The Post assumes that most of their readers will be on board with their idea that “people who have committed crimes such as child abuse or indecent exposure have no business working in schools.” The Post says, “Prohibiting convicted felons from working in Colorado schools seems like a pretty easy notion to support.” Through this first statement it is easy to see that the editor is appealing to those who agree that convicted felons should not be working in schools. This first sentence works well for the editor because they are pulling in the reader’s attention by talking about a topic a lot of people would be interested in, felons in the school system. This makes the reader want to read on. Another sentence that works well for the editor is this one, “To be sure, a felony drug conviction is a serious matter. However, we can envision a circumstance in which someone embarking upon a second career as a teacher might have an old drug conviction from days when drug laws were more harsh.” By first stating the obvious and beginning with a statement that most people would agree with; “drug conviction is a serious matter” the editor is not discriminating against those who feel very strong against drug convictions. The Post is then able to go on and say that there are certain circumstances where drug convictions may not be as serious as they once were.

The Post makes themselves very creditable in this editorial by giving a decent amount of background on House Bill 1121. The editor uses about five sentences to explain what HB 1121 is saying, “House Bill 1121 would prohibit Colorado school districts from employing support staff, such as custodians and lunch workers, who have felony convictions for child abuse, crimes of violence, unlawful sexual behavior, indecent exposure and drug crimes.” By providing this background it is easier for the editor to explain what he/she believes should be edited to the bill. The Post also uses quotes from Jane Urschel who is the deputy director of the Colorado Association of School Boards. Urschel told the Post that the CASB supports HB 1121. Jane Urschel makes a good point by saying, “she did not see the bill setting off a "witch hunt," but rather would give districts a way to get rid of individuals with serious criminal backgrounds who may have slipped through checks.” This quote gives the reader an idea of what the bill will achieve in the end. Another strong statement the editor makes is, “With those caveats, we think the bill is another tool districts could use to ensure the safety of children.” This statement really pulls in sentimental value within the argument and there are not too many readers who could deny the safety of children.

As far as wording goes a great way the editor explains what he/she believes should be done to the bill was with this statement, “At the very least, legislators should consider making an old drug conviction — one that happened 10 or 20 years ago — to be a condition that could prohibit employment, not shall prohibit.” By clearly saying that the wording should be changed from could to shall it gives the reader a clear idea of what the editor wants to achieve through their editorial.

This editorial does a great job in persuading the reader that House Bill 1121 should be edited and tweaked a bit.

Rhetorical Analysis of Fear of a Red Planet

2011-02-07T11:07:00.001-07:00

Fear of a Red Planet written by David Harsanyi describes the current attitude of American people when they talk about China especially editors from newspaper and explains why Chinese economics’ development is not a threaten for America. He begin to mentions a well known word from Hollywood ‘80s classic “Red Dawn”, which is refer to communism. As people all know the policy of China is communism. To make a dig at how big effects the communism makes, he use a example “a ragtag band of high-school students will do what hundreds of billions in Pentagon spending couldn’t do: save Michigan from communism.” The huge effect of hundreds of billons compares with the tiny affection of a ragtag band of high-school students, the large difference give his argument a great support. then he explain why the remark from Hollywood leave American people such a wrong influence “the remake will be entertaining and offer a far more plausible plot line than the original” , which mean that this characterization comes out from an entertaining program which is easier to accept by people also is not correct.

Later he refers that Chinese President HU jintao went to America and met Obama, which attract all people’s attention about the relation between America and China. Not surprised while people look at the obviously development of China, which go beyond American’s thought, they give too much fear about the influence of Chinese economy.

A survey by Andrew Kohut, who is in the Pew Research Center, use pages of The Wall Street Journal talked about what American people think about the economic situation in the world. The survey shows that 47 percent people considered China as the world’s top economic power, while only 31 percent of people believe America has the world’s top economic power. Nevertheless, the fact is that U.S. economy nearly three times the size of China. Another survey tells about 47 percent people think China’s growth is a “bad thing” for United States. A new CNN poll found the similar result that 58 percent of American consider China’s “wealth and economic power” are threat to the United Stated. The author use accurate numbers from a power survey directly shows American’s fear of the growth of China. What else, these survey tell us these results are from all American people instead of coming up only by the author.

After the author describe the whole situation of the reason why American people “fear of red plane” he gives his own opinion. The relationship between United Stated and China is “layered with international complexity and fraught with danger”, however, “economic competition can be mutually beneficial”, which is not like ideological clashes. In this way he remind people, even if Chinese economy developed in an amazing speed there is no reason for American people to fear. International economic competition is different from ideological clashes, which every country has their own certain opinion and don’t allow to be changed by others. The basic of economic competition is profit which is same all countries. As a result, it is not necessary to worry about. This part is convinced because the author separates the different between economic competition and ideological clashes. For the first one we have the same goal, which is profit, and the second one is not changeable by other country. After understanding the principle of economic competition, it is not hard for people to understand why they don’t need to worried about other country’s growth in economy.

While some American people may worried about if China will set up a war after their big growth of economy. To explain this situation, the author gives a competitor “Suicide bombers rarely drive top-of-the-line BMWs.” It is mean if China has real economic wealth they would not let their economic wealth go to an obvious die. Because we all know war not only damaged wealth also Chinese people know exactly they still have a long distance with United Sates in economy. A humor brings people light emotion that Chinese economic growth cannot be a threaten for American, also can be a great support to the author’s argument.

Obama the Optimist

2011-02-07T10:27:00.001-07:00

Mike Littwin is a reporter for the Denver Post, particularly the Editorial section. He has worked at the Post for many years and is a well and respected writer. A week ago, President Barack Obama gave his annual State of the Union Speech. This is a chance for the President to address not only all of Congress, but the entire nation as well. Often times, the President will discuss current events, future policies, and anything that he might want to say to the people. This year, he gave a speech that was very optimistic and insightful. A speech that ensured the people that the worst was over, but there were still many hardships to overcome. It wouldn’t be easy, but with a strong, and united government the citizens of this country could go on to do great things. Was it the message the people wanted to hear? Perhaps it was, and maybe it wasn’t, but the message was strong and gave hope for the future. If the public isn’t looking to the future then they need to sort out their priorities.

In his article “Obama Played the Optimism Card,” Mike Littwin addresses a number of important issues the President brought up in his State of the Union speech. The most sound of these arguments being that Mr. Obama is trying to win the future. Not just so he can maintain his reign as President, but in terms of our country as a whole. While it would be a lie to say he isn’t thinking ahead to the 2012 election, he is also thinking about current and more relevant issues. The “optimism card,” as it is called is a strategy many great Presidents have used in the past while enduring tough times. “Reagan had morning in America, Clinton had Fleetwood Mac, and Obama had what they call “date night,” in the House, in which there was cross-party seating and, as a result, no made-for-TV dissent section (Littwin 1).” What he meant by his message is the decisions made on the past are unchangeable and we have to deal with them, and look forward to a better tomorrow.

However, the road to a successful future is not easy, made evident by Rep. Paul Ryan who gave a strong counter attack to the Presidents ideals. He was quoted as saying “We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century.” While the President wanted to instill the lives of American’s with hope of a better tomorrow, it seemed many didn’t share his aspirations. Instead they chose to strike fear into the hearts of voters opting for their own “change.” The President is far more optimistic; he shares a dream that the people have the power to create a smart and responsible government. After all this is the United, not divided, States of America. It is optimism like this that made his speech so powerful, in a time when the country was at a moment of weakness. If it takes a tragedy like that of Tucson to bring both sides together, then the future is bleak.

Perhaps one of the most hopeful and optimistic things that Obama delivered was a quote in which he states, “We can have smart, responsible government.” Smart and responsible government may sound like a bad joke, that’s because it is. Littwin argues that we have cut government to rely on smart, responsible hedge funders, who take massive tax breaks. It seems at times that people can never decided on what they want. As Littwin puts it, “we’re dissatisfied, but we’re not sure how to make things better. Everyone is a critic, but nobody seems to do anything, or knows what to do. Whether you like government or not, this sounds like a bit of a stretch, but Obama is optimistic, and hopeful there are many people who share his passion for government.

Yes, President Obama is optimistic and he has a lot to accomplish in such a short amount of time. We the people have dug a debt; we bought goods and refuse to pay for them. Everyone wants to cut taxes, or cut programs, but when asked what to cut, nobody wants to get rid of anything. Obama embodies what a good president should, optimistic, while maintaining a bit of realism. Understanding what a country is capable of, and what is actually possible are different, the idea is to shorten the gap and reach full potential. After watching, reading, or listening to the Presidents State of the Union address, the country can get a feel for what the white house is up to. In addition to the many duties he already has, the president is confident, optimistic, and hopeful. That America will regain its financial stability, increase government performance, and become a better country.

2011-02-07T10:09:00.004-07:00

Clamp Down On Gun-Clip Overkill

In the Denver Post editorial section, the article "Clamp Down On Gun-Clip Overkill" addresses the recent shooting in Tucson that killed six people and wounded 19. The major premise is that high-capacity gun magazines are unnecessary and jeopardize the safety of the public. The article describes how Jared Loughner was able to successfully execute and wound several innocent people in a shooting due to the 33-round magazine he had loaded in his Glock pistol. The minor premise of the article is that Jared Loughner’s shooting spree is a direct result of the expired assault weapons ban. The conclusion is that high-capacity magazines are dangerous and unnecessary, and should therefore be banned. The shooting is an example of kiaros, which provides the writer with an advantageous time to publish their arguments for gun control to a certain extent because the audience is more likely to feel urgency over this rhetorical situation.

The editorial goes on to explain that magazines with the capacity to hold excessive ammunition have no purpose other than empowering owners to easily kill a lot of people, as hunting doesn't require such readily available rounds and neither does any self-defense purposes. The author uses a persuasive logos appeal by explaining that a paranoid homeowner is most likely not going to be invaded by 33-armed assailants, for which a magazine such as Glock offers would be considered necessary. Although the restriction of the right to bear arms is considered unconstitutional or unpatriotic and therefore leaves the writer with no commonplaces; the article states that, "This is not a debate about taking anyone's guns away. It's simply recognition that if people want to kill a lot of people, the ability to fire a lot of bullets quickly makes it so much easier." This excerpt strengthens the writer's logos appeal by assuring gun activists that this is a matter of public safety rather than an attempt to take away the right of every citizen to own guns. Ethos appeal is also present because the writer demonstrates their good will towards the audience by insuring that the safety of the American people must come first.

The article quotes Dick Cheney saying, "maybe it's appropriate" to bring back the assault weapons ban that was instituted by the Clinton administration in 1994 with the support of Reagan, Carter, and Ford. Under this law, which is nonexistent as of the George W. Bush presidency, prohibits the sale of weaponry such a Loughner used. This example encourages readers to agree with the need for a ban on high-capacity magazines as the writer creates a strong ethos appeal using the actions of several respected former presidents, which gives credibility to the argument. The reference to the 1993 Long Island Railroad shootings, which resulted in the death of the husband of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. and the wounding of her son, provides the editorial with a strong pathos appeal as the incidence makes the reader feel sympathy and compassion towards Rep. McCarthy, two strong emotions which can be used to persuade the audience.

The proofs used in this article are effective because they logically, ethically, and emotionally lead the reader to agree that these magazines are dangerous and need to be banned. The author opposes a law that permits assault weapons, however, they present arguments that seem unbiased even to the avid N.R.A. member. The key to the writer’s effectiveness is that they indirectly suggest to the reader that the unalienable right to life is more important than the constitutional right to bear arms. The editorial does not take an extreme point of view such as holding the manufacturer of the weapon, Glock, accountable for the murders that Loughner committed. Instead, it is the safety and security of the public that the writer focuses on. The audience, advocates of gun control or not, are forced to consider the value of human life and if a 33-round magazine is worth the cost.

Abortion, religion and reason

2011-02-07T10:03:00.002-07:00

David Harsanyi in his article “Abortion, religion and reason” discusses the ever divisive issue of abortion rights in the United States. His argument does not hinge on the second word of his title, but rather the American population’s problem with the third: reason. Mr. Harsanyi believes that when citizens begin to discuss this very sensitive subject common sense and logic are abandoned and emotional appeals are used in order to distract the other from the actual point of the argument.

Mr. Harsanyi uses the current news story of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia doctor who allegedly completed botched late-term abortions by using scissors to cut the spinal cord in a living baby’s neck. Since Roe v Wade occurred over thirty years ago, this new twist in the abortion discussion creates the perfect time for a debate to occur.

As a libertarian, Mr. Harsanyi frequently tries to disconnect himself from religious organizations which are typically affiliated with the conservative movement, and generally depend strongly on emotional appeals rather than logical ones. Emotion is one of the easiest ways to lose an argument. He says, “There were folks I generally don't hang with: Catholics for Life, Baptists for Life, Lutherans for Life — no denomination left behind.” Mr. Harsanyi makes a joke at both the conservative movement and religious organizations by alluding to former President George W. Bush’s policy named No Child Left Behind (with which many libertarians disagreed) and by saying that he normally does not associate with such groups. Mr. Harsanyi also makes a slight joke with his final part of that statement by pointing out how many religious organizations hop on the anti-abortion bandwagon, which begins his argument.

“How many Americans avoid an honest look at the abortion issue because of the cultural dimensions of the debate. How many Americans instinctively turn to the pro-choice camp because pro-life proponents aggravate their secular sensibilities?” Mr. Harsanyi asks. He discusses the facts of the issues believing that a statistical analysis of abortion is a more centered and more logical view of the topic. He states that 41.3 percent of Hispanic pregnancy and 60 percent of “non-Hispanic black” pregnancy end in abortion and that overall, 41 percent of all pregnancies in New York were terminated by means of abortion. Mr. Harsanyi uses these numbers to make his argument have substance and background, essentially using this to support (what I believe) to be his opinion about abortion: it is wrong and overly used. However, Mr. Harsanyi neglects to actually analyze the information which has supplied, which in reality strengthens his argument.

These statistics could be construed in either a pro-choice manner or a pro-life one very easily. The pro-life argument has already been supplied: there are too many abortions in the country being used for reasons other than rape and incest. The flip side of that argument would be that maybe Hispanic women and “non-Hispanic black” women are more likely to be raped in their lifetimes. Mr. Harsanyi neglects to point out that maybe many of these women are prostitutes. But the stronger point which Mr. Harsanyi ignores is the fact that many minority women do not report their pregnancies to doctors because they cannot afford it. This could mean of those mothers who choose not to report their pregnancy either 1) they have abortions or 2) they do not. If Mr. Harsanyi had mentioned this thought, it could have very easily strengthened and very easily weakened his argument. This entire article hinges on the idea of logical reasoning and using facts to support that reason, but because statistics can be interpreted so differently on a regular basis, Mr. Harsanyi supplies the statistics supported by his interpretation and therefore leaves no room for the reader to interpret it him/herself.

Mr. Harsanyi concludes his article by appealing to a logical nature. He states, “But if the pro-life movement is going to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the nation, it's not going to need more God. It's going to need more reason.” He uses this tactic because of his initial question of how many people are turned away from a pro-life aspect because of the religious organizations. More people from the secular part of the American population would be willing to accept the pro-life stance more if it was not so much, “You will go to hell for killing one of God’s creations” and more “A single celled zygote has the ability to develop into a grown human adult. Based on the law of biogenesis, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats and humans beget humans. An unborn child does not suddenly become human as it exits the womb; it is human from the start.” Also by using this tactic, emphasizing an argument based in reason, he is appealing to the liberal population which only holds the pro-choice belief because they are so turned off from religion in politics.

This is an appeal to both sides of the abortion issue: the right and the left. Mr. Harsanyi very effectively addresses both populations and in a way this tactic strengthens his argument as well. By doing this, he is bringing both sides into a room to speak about the issue as adults. He asks the right wing conservatives to use reason more that moral and emotional appeals and asks the left to listen to reason and not just ignore the other side of the argument because of religious bias. While he does not address the liberal population which has a belief about abortion grounded in research, he does try to contact those who are of the “indifferent” population in the left.

Overall, Mr. Harsanyi uses his article very effectively to make his point about needing more reason in the abortion argument. He uses kairos to begin his argument, finding an event that has occurred recently (the doctor in Pennsylvania). He uses his ethos as a libertarian who tends to stay away from religious politics in order to establish a relationship with others who are skeptical of religious movements. Mr. Harsanyi uses statistics and ignores other aspects of the argument in order to strengthen his current position. And finally he appeals to what he hopes is the reader’s logical nature by emphasizing his belief that the abortion argument needs less God and more reason.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17197225

Illegal immigration law in Arizona starts to affect the rest of the country

2011-02-07T00:51:00.000-07:00

The piece I choose to do an analysis of for the Denver Rhetor blog was from the opinion section of Denver Post. The piece was “ Leave immigrant law in desert” by the editorialist at the Denver Post. This piece was written because there is anger over the lack of immigration enforcement. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass common-sense immigration reform. As well as Washington In general hasn’t worked hard enough to seal the border. The people of our society who are frustrated with the current immigration situation are hoping Washington will find a solution that will work.

In hopes of creating a solution to our immigration issue, a bill is possibly going to be introduced this month. The bill introduced by senators Angela Giron and Michael Johnston will propose that students who are in the country illegally, but have graduated from Colorado high schools be able to pay in-state tuition when they go to college. The authors of the editorial offer insight on the issue of immigration and their opinion on what the solution should be. Furthermore, the authors question how the bill going to benefit our state and how will affect our society.

This leads them to the conclusion that treating the children of illegal immigrants as state residents is the right thing to do both morally and economically. The piece justifies this conclusion because rewarding lawbreakers is not in our best interest, but children should not suffer for the actions of their parents. Secondly, the piece justifies this conclusion because they believe that it makes sense to create incentives to finish school. Next, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that we have already invested in their education up until now because the U.S Supreme Court requires it, so why not continue it. Lastly, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that in-state tuition would mount to a relatively small expense and would pay off, in the long run by producing a productive member of society. The piece justifies this conclusion because rewarding lawbreakers is not in our best interest, but children should not suffer for the actions of their parents. Secondly, the piece justifies this conclusion because they believe that it makes sense to create incentives to finish school. Next, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that we have already invested in their education up until now because the U.S Supreme Court requires it, so why not continue it. Lastly, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that in-state tuition would mount to a relatively small expense and would pay off, in the long run by producing a productive member of society.

The editorialist of this opinion piece convince their audience that their conclusion is right through the important analytical details. The article not only uses important facts, but also hits at the hearts of the American population by appealing to their pathos. It also ties the facts into the audience’s emotions by appealing to their kairos.

This article uses pathos to its advantage by bringing up the feeling of sympathy within the audience for the child. By stirring this feeling within the audience, it encourages the audience to take action against the issue. The audience takes action because they feel guilty for not doing anything to help the poor, helpless child. They want to help the child because they are led to believe through the article that the parents are incapable of taking care of them and therefore it is the right thing to do, both morally and economically. This causes the audience to feel anger towards the parents of the children, and to blame the parents for all the issues the kids are facing in the current situation. This leads the author to use an appeal to kairos to connect with the audience on a deeper level. The author takes the background information on the issue of illegal immigration and uses kairos to show that it is the opportune moment to help the situation. He does this by bringing light to the issue of illegal immigration and the unfair treatment they receive. He shows his audience that this issue is prevalent and important in today’s society. His ultimate goal is to try and convince the skeptics of his article that his arguments are solid because they can be backed up by facts. In order to create an article that connects to all types of people, he had to appeal to pathos, but could not have a solid argument without using kairos. Therefore, without both appeals he could not create an article worth reading.

In the end the author’s goal was to bring attention to a serious issue surrounding illegal immigration. He did this by giving us his opinion and showing us the facts about the issue. He then connected to his audience on a personal level by appealing to the audience’s pathos and karios. He wanted to try and persuade the skeptics or the indifferent people in his audience that the issue was something to pay attention too. Personally, I was skeptical at first about the issue and the opinions that surrounded it. After reading the article though, it changed my mind completely, as I hope it did the other readers.

Denver Post author reels readers from far and near with talk of Christmas cheer

2011-02-07T00:48:00.001-07:00

Almost everyone in America appreciates a good laugh. When people face uncomfortable or serious situations, people always try to make a joke to relax everyone. There are many sayings that prove how much laughter can help people. After analyzing a plethora of articles written by John Andrews, it is easy to see his approach to rhetorical writing and how he approaches his topics. Although he often writes about politics and the Colorado government, his articles are filled with humor and creativity. As a former president of the Colorado Senate, he has an awful lot to say about the way Colorado runs it’s state and who has power where.

Andrews is not a regular contributor to the Denver Post, but he has a lot to say and says it very eloquently. You can tell from his writing that he knows a lot, but is also very sarcastically harsh and has very dry humor. Something one can definitely appreciate about Andrews is the fact that he won’t talk about something unless he actually has knowledge about the topic. He does not try to fake his way through an article by giving the reader useless words, but rather invigorates them with his personal experiences and thoughts.

In Andrews article “A modern Christmas Carol” he tells a fictional story of seeing ghosts of Christmas past after he gets in a car accident when he is distracted by an Obama bumper sticker. He writes of the visuals he sees when an old elementary school teacher leads him through defining moments in his childhood like “Stopping at several homes, she showed him classmates he'd looked down on. Peeking into a church, he saw two brothers ridiculing a less affluent family's Christmas attire”, after seeing this his teacher asks him, in not so many words if he always practices what he preaches. The article continues on like this, going through the city on a pretend helicopter ride pointing out homeless shelters and places where inner-city kids can go to be mentored. Through the article, we see Andrews mocking his “Republican” lifestyle with his large SUV and ignorance towards helping others. Although it may seem like fellow republicans would be offended by Andrews satire, appreciation for this humor can go two ways. Democrats can laugh at it because they agree with the Republican stereotype, while Republicans can find it funny because he is making fun of them, but also making fun of himself.

In this article, Andrews is focusing his writing towards voters of almost any age and people that are aware of the political happenings locally and nationally. All of his articles focus on different topics so depending on the day; his focus audience could be different. Sometimes he focuses on the problems within the school district, and for those articles his audience could be more parents of students who are in the public school system and also students who are interested in what could be happening to their education.

Because of Andrews focus on politics and government, it would be hard for an uneducated person to follow his articles. Although he talks about issues that a lot of people can relate to, sometimes it is hard to follow along while trying to understand the humor and his opinion about the situation. I had to read his writings over a couple of times to fully grasp what points he was trying to make because I was so focused on the intervals of humor.

Andrews also uses commonplaces to pull people into his articles. By theming one of his articles on the spirit of Christmas and goodwill during the holiday season, he is talking about something a lot of people can relate to and also a happy time of year when people focus on their families and often lose track of politics. By integrating policy, Christmas and humor into one article, Andrews energizes his readers to recall the idea of goodwill during the holiday season but also gets his opinion about Colorado policy into the readers mind. Every person who reads the Denver Post is probably affected by Christmas in some way, whether they celebrate it, do more business because of it, or have to resort to Chinese take-out and a movie because of it. By bringing it up in an opinion article, it gets the reader’s attention and gives them a way to relate to the author.

Negative rhetoric has an outcome.

2011-02-07T00:26:00.001-07:00

I chose to analyze a piece of writing in the Denver Post written by Fred Brown titled “The other columns stink. Read this one”. The macro message in this article is about rhetorical tactics used by political figures. Brown argues that the constant use of negative tactics by politicians to discredit opponents is responsible for harming their overall image and in the long run devaluing their worth in society. Brown uses simple examples to start his argument to show how harmless certain rhetorical tactics might have all seemed 40 to 50 years ago but then quickly moves into how some tactics have taken a turn for the worse.

Overall, the underlying tone of Browns argument is one of concern. He tries to push awareness to his audience by asking very persuasive questions such as, “What do negative tactics do to society’s perspective in the long run?” and “Do we fully understand what the consequence is or is the media fueled by only playing the watchdog role and finding problems instead of giving attention to the problem-solvers or attempts at solutions?” Brown points out in one sentence, “Rarely does anyone offer a reason to hope for improvement” suggesting that if this type of negative play continues, we’re all as good as doomed.

The simple examples used at the beginning of the article help to point out how harmless some rhetoric might have been, like Pepsi ridiculing Coke drinkers or advertisements for Visa that implied American Express users were hopelessly behind the times. I like how Brown used these examples to present a simple principle of his argument. Then to strengthen this principle, he eludes to the alternative in his next statement, “This tactic of insulting your competition instead of proving superiority by your own performance has become such a toxic environment, which for most has seemingly become accepted and smart”. I think he clearly presented the argument and followed through with his stance before presenting any examples of how this relates to society in a more current environment.

To introduce pathos, Brown uses strong, dramatic and descriptive wording in this article such as “evil” and “doomed”, like in this sentence that reads, “They’re not just wrong, they’re evil, or at best totally incompetent” when describing politicians that engage in discrediting or demoralizing opponents for the purpose of winning elections. I like his dramatic word selection because it lets the audience consider the urgency of the matter. As if to say, that if realization doesn’t come quickly we might be faced with bigger issues later and left to wonder how we got to this extreme point.

Brown does a good job warming me up to the issue even though in this case, I already had a strong opinion in favor of his main argument. He has reassured my ethos on the issue by putting my mind in a commonplace. I also think starting the article with the simple examples of Pepsi vs Coke or Visa vs American Express was very persuasive for those who do not agree or are unaware of the issue directly. He has taken something that doesn’t directly relate and made the principle of his argument relate to the overall argument that this kind of behavior has some damaging effects whether we can see where this leads us or not. I see this as a very cleaver tactic to broadening his audience.

Once in a commonplace, Brown transitions the focus to a devastating recent event to weigh whether certain rhetorical tactics played a part. By bringing his argument to the present he allows the audience to add their newly formed emotions of the situation to the situation. I think by doing this he is leading his entire audience to a commonplace whether or not they agreed with him at this point. Brown uses the recent Arizona shooting to be persuasive when asking, “Is this widespread disrespect for the political and legislative process to blame for what happened outside a Safeway” He suggest that it is “at least partially, because when politicians are repeatedly presented as less than worthy, an inferior subspecies, it’s not hard to make the stretch that their lives are somehow less important”. This suggests to me that the tactics politicians choose to deploy during elections are negatively impacting the image of politicians and positioning them as less than worthy of life.

In conclusion of this article, Brown decides to use the topic of global warming, a rather long-winded debate to illustrate how we might not always consider the consequences of our actions because we do not realize the affect in a short enough timeframe to be measured. As in the case of global warming, not all people have fully committed to one side or the other and even if there was indisputable evidence of our involvement, doing something that encourages change is very hard to accomplish if the possible outcome is nearly impossible to predict. By using this example, Browns argument is strengthen by suggesting that even though he cannot conclude what the outcome might be on society, its still a great idea to start paying attention to what’s being said and consider the consequences that may follow.

Overall I think this is a great piece of writing because it clearly introduces a very compiling argument around a subject that most people will get behind. For me, I would love to see much less of a negative approached to get my vote. I want to know why I should vote for someone because of the good values they hold, not listen to the negative accusations made of their opponent.

Denver Post editorial claims Big Air event not beginning of commercialization trend for city parks

2011-02-06T22:16:00.005-07:00

The Denver Post editorial “Share Civic Center for Big Air event? You bet” (January 25th, 2011) strives to alleviate the public’s concern that steep ticket prices for the outdoor ski competition serves as an indicator that our public parks are falling victim to over-commercialization. The editor asserts that the elaborate freestyle ski event, made popular by similar events held in cities such as New York and San Francisco, is not a sign of bad things to come for Denver’s parks. The author achieves his purpose by utilizing the persuasive devices of recognizing the controversy, easy to follow deductive reasoning, and rhetorical examples that compel the audience to have a stake in the issue.

From the very beginning, the Post recognizes that not everyone is happy with the fact that a paid event is being hosted in a city park. The editor writes, “City parks are for the public. We get that.” In doing so, the editor effectively sympathizes with the public’s concern over whom the city parks really belong to. This establishes good will and cleverly serves to earn readers’ trust by simply regurgitating a contemporary maxim of sorts and conveying unwavering support for it. Such a strategy is useful in rhetoric such as this because it goes a longs ways in terms of drawing the opposition into the debate. Park advocates’ passionate disgust for the event being held in Civic Center Park is diffused at least temporarily by the editor’s willingness to throw something into the debate in which common ground can be found. This pays dividends in that most readers react positively early on in the editorial and therefore, are more likely to read the rest of the piece with interest and a greater sense of open-mindedness. This sets the stage for the Post’s elaboration on their theory that the Big Air event is not a sign of bad things to come for the city’s public parks.

The editorial continues with the inclusion of logical, deductive reasoning that solidifies the paper’s opinion. Essentially, the editor’s reasoning can be summarized like this: The ramp the skiers and boarders use is “breathtaking” and expensive. The public is fascinated by the event. Therefore, the ticket prices are justified by the sheer awe the event creates.
The deductive reasoning is straightforward for readers to follow and meticulously crafted with the inclusion of indisputable fact. The editor expresses the scope of the event by grasping readers’ attention with the rhetorical question “Have you actually seen the 106-foot-tall ramp on which snowboarders and skiers descend?” Besides using the proven technique of incorporating rhetorical questions into the piece (which inherently draws readers into the debate), the editor strengthens this strategy by going a step further and including a fact that later serves to justify the high cost of the event. The editor continues by elaborating on the 106-foot-tall ramp, its synthetic materials and man-made snow. This all cumulates into the $800k cost, the editor says. By this point in the editorial, the editor has persuaded some readers that the cost of the tickets are indicative of the great expense that goes into creating the spectacular event while emphasizing that no tax dollars are being spent.

The editor strengthens his argument by using rhetorical examples that serve to draw outsiders of the event into the unique atmosphere that the event brings to the neighborhoods surrounding Civic Center. The author discusses the aura that the undertaking of the event creates for those who live and work near the park. The author writes, “The spectacle has been worth witnessing even if you had no intention of buying a ticket to watch it.” This implies that the general public receives a unique kind of value out of the public park while the event is going on. This is important due to the very purpose of a park – and that purpose is to serve everyone. At the same time, the editorial makes it clear that the Big Air event is not the beginning of any type of commercialization trend for the city’s parks. In fact, the editor states that he is adamantly opposed to fencing off public parks for events such as this on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the editor encourages readers to appreciate the “breathtaking” event while it lasts.

Editorial: Should airlines pay us for those long delays? by Cailiu Xu

2011-02-06T21:07:00.003-07:00

At the beginning of January, I was flight from China back to the U.S..When I arrived in the U.S. I have to transfer from San Francisco to Denver. The flight from SF was delay for about 2 hours. It made me crazy because I was too tired and I can not go anywhere to have rest. Therefore, I was just seat in the airport and wait. Also, because of the flight was canceled, my friend’s schedule also have to change. This is why after I read the article’s title that was so interested me. “Should airlines pay us for those long delays”? The first response out of my mind is: of course have to pay us!

The whole editorial was state about U.S. airlines should pay their customers for those long delays. There is no rules for flight delay or cancel, therefore the customer is not protected. Also, this is why the flight always delay or cancel without notice. When the flight canceled, people’s schedule need to changed. If the air company tell the customer before one or two hours, maybe the schedule can changed more easily. We know that time is very treasure, therefore waste is equal to waste money. The airline waste their customer’s money, so they have to pay back to their customer.

The common place for this editorial is about the customer service. People pay money to make things more convenient and relax. If the customer service do not care about their customer, why people need to pay that much money to them? The author provide some data to show that how bad the U.S. flight is not online and canceled. “More than 7,100 departing flights were canceled Dec. 26-29 at 30 major U.S. airports and another 8,600 flights were delayed more than 44 minutes”. Flight canceled can due to many reasons. However, the customer service need to help their customer to solve those problems. Why people have to wait in the airport? Can the customer service do something for their customers? The author wrote that “If airlines were on the hook of these delays and had to reimburse passengers for hotels and meals, an already rickety business model would be pushed to deal with the new high cost of regulations”. The customer need to be take care when their flights were delay or canceled.

The article’s title is “should airlines pay us for those long delays”? The author use “us” in this title. It makes the reader feel that the author is facing this problem and he/she really want to find a way to fix it. Therefore, the author has more standpoint to talk about it. The author first state an incident in European Union. This incident first let the reader think about their country’s flight. Are the flights always delay or canceled? When it happened, what was the airline’s response? Also, the author gave an example of a horror story. Because of the waiting time, the passenger turned to prisoners. After I saw this story, it remind me when I get stuck in the airplane and can’t go out. At that time, I feel so angry and feel like I am in prison, because I can’t do anything and can’t go out. This is an example of how the author use ethos in his editorial.

In this editorial, firstly the author mentioned about the European Union’s incident, and then the author talked about the mother nature’s fault. Then the author told us a story of the passengers who stuck in the airplane that can not get out. Later, the author gave an evidence to show that how horrible the airplane delay and cancel issue was. The author use data as his/her evidence. He also mentioned about maybe the government can do something for it. At the end, the author point out his/her opinion, which is the airline should reimburse their passengers for delay or cancel the flight.

Haley Argues For Equality In Education by Lauren Rice

2011-02-06T20:08:00.002-07:00

In his article, Plight of Jailed Mom, Dan Haley, a columnist from the Denver Post, has only one page to convince his audience that parents should be allowed to choose what school their child attends. With only one page, Haley uses many strategies, making every word count, to create a convincing argument to those who disagree, a reassuring article to those who agree, and raise awareness to those who do not know of the issue. For those unaware, a woman was jailed for falsifying records and deceiving public school administrators so her child could attend a better school than the one in district in which they lived. Haley explains that while the nation is thinking about education reform, something to think about is allowing parents to have the choice of which school their children receive an education. In order to present a worthwhile argument, Dan Haley first establishes personal credibility, and then provides the reader with logical and pathetic proof within his article The Plight of Jailed Mom to reach out to America for education reform.

A writer’s first job must be to establish ethos. After all, why should any reader listen to just some random person, respect the argument and give validation to the opinion? Once a writer has established credibility and a good reputation, an audience immediately and inherently respects the article itself. To establish an invented ethos, rhetors must create a persona within their writings. While contemporary rhetors are not as blatant about ethos as ancient writers, there are still clues within the pieces, which lend themselves to establishing credibility. Dan Haley, a columnist, beside the fact that he has been writing for the Denver Post, a well-known and credible paper for a while, his articles are well written and sound intelligent. It is obvious that Haley does his homework and pays attention to details in a ways that shows the reader he knows what he is talking about. In his article The Plight of Jailed Mom, Haley shows his academic credibility by speaking intelligently and correctly about the President Obama’s stance on wanting to focus policy on education in the State of the Union Address. Haley also explains current policies in the state of Colorado regarding education. Currently, Colorado houses an open-enrollment law, which allows parents to pick the school their child attends, no matter what district, as long as there are openings. With this, Haley informs readers of the current state laws, as well as establishing credibility and trust with his readers.

Another way Haley establishes his ethos is by securing the goodwill of his audience. In this article, Haley does a few strategic and subtle things to connect with his readers further. Haley creates in intimate distance between himself and the reader to establish a closer identification and to add to the possibility of persuasion. He does this in a few ways. The first is with the use of first and second person. In this article, Haley writes, “This should have been the moment we demanded dramatic change”. By using “we”, Haley makes a connection with the audience and creates an identity of being a part of the public in which writes to. Attitude and personality in this article, as well as small conversational words and qualifiers, helps to close the gap of formality, allowing for a connection with the reader. After explaining the situation where a mother was put in jail for trying to get her kids into a better school, Haley writes, “Yeah, go ahead and read that again”. This not only gives emphasis on the fact that a mother was jailed for trying to better her kids education, but it also shows Haley’s personality. Another, subtle yet affective way this article makes a further connection with the reader is with the use of qualifiers. When Haley writes, “Jailed Mom’s darkest day, I’m guessing, came earlier this month…” the article becomes more conversational, bridging a gap between a college lecture piece and a coffee shop exchange with a friend. By establishing a connection with the audience, the rhetor can be trusted by the public.

However, a rhetor’s ethos is just one piece of the puzzle. While a rhetor must establish ethos, a good reputation goes nowhere with an audience without a solid, logical piece to accompany the ethos. While Haley’s argument is important, the Presidential State of the Union Address gave his argument more context. While education reform in America has been an ongoing concern, Haley used kairos as a way to enhance the urgency of his argument. As the president reintroduced this issue into the minds of America, Haley attached to this to further challenge the American public on education while it was fresh on their minds. With the nation talking about education reform again, it gives people a reason to care about what Haley has to say in this article.

As the basis of his argument, Haley builds off of the foundation that this nation believes that all children deserve a quality education. From this commonplace, Haley can start with his readers all on the same page, in which he can launch his argument. From this commonplace, Haley uses inductive reasoning to carry his readers through his logic. Starting with the specific example of the “jailed mom” having to take drastic measures to ensure her child has a quality education, then extending it to the nation’s educational problems as a whole and what should be done about them. Starting with the major premise that everyone deserves a quality education, Haley then begins to string together a few minor premises that parents feel responsible for the education of their children, and not all students are receiving a good education. This all leads to his conclusion that parents should have the choice of which school their child attends, not being confined by district borders. Worried that the reader may focus on the wrong thing, Haley even pulls the reader away from a the thought that the mother did commit the crime of deceiving public officials, so that he could combat any flaw with his own premise and argument. Haley says, “You can question whether she deserved a felony conviction or not, but to me the bottom line is you shouldn’t have to break the law to get your kid into a better school”. With this, Haley insures that readers do not get stuck on a flaw with the Haley’s reasoning by acknowledging and drawing attention away from a debatable issue and focusing his readers on the problems with education.

This article however, would not be complete without the use of pathos. With such a hot topic issue regarding the children of this nation, Haley tries to pull on the emotions of his readers. Haley reaches parents who all just want the best for their kids. Asking his readers to think about what they would do if their children were in a failing school. While some are concerned about the “tiger mom” who is obsessive about their children earning top marks at school, Haley shows this same desire for her children to succeed as the mom who was jailed. By taking matters into their own hands, should a parent be jailed trying to combat inequality in opportunity? Haley uses this as a way to confront his readers to think about this subject as the nation moves forward with education reform.

David Harsanyi Criticizes Obama's Cold War Comparisons, by Adam Pettyes

2011-02-06T19:15:00.002-07:00

The “cold war” is a very memorable and significant period in our nation and world’s history. This period marks the race between primarily the Soviet Union and the United States. The “cold war” was very different than most wars because it did not involve direct military contact. Instead, this war was more of an economical, political and scientific race. One of the major accomplishments of this period was the creation of the world’s first artificial satellite by the Soviet Union. Denver Post Columnist David Harsanyi wrote an Op-Ed article on Friday, January 28, 2011 about how President Obama’s State of the Union address sounded much like the messages sent to the American people during the “cold war”.

This article was very sarcastic toward President Obama’s speech and expressed many skeptical ideas and flaws in Obama’s argument. Along with skepticism toward the State of the Union address, Harsanyi also expressed his skeptical opinion on Sputnik. He believed that the Soviet’s effort to out-do the United States resulted in unnecessary spending which had negative effects on the already stagnant, dying economy.

The audience for this article is easily identified. Harsanyi is speaking to the citizens of Denver. Harsanyi begins his argument by describing the situation and identifies exactly what it is that he is analyzing. This post has a very apparent kairos. The State of the Union address is a very important speech made every year by the president of the United States. This speech had just been given days before Harsanyi posted this piece in the Denver Post. The issue is very relevant to Harsanyi’s audience. Citizens of the United States have at least somewhat of an interest in the State of the Union address because it most often pertains to them directly. Harsanyi uses this kairotic moment to convey his opinion on the topic.

Harsanyi begins his post by commenting on Obama’s reference to the “good jobs” when people would show up “at a nearby factory or a business downtown.” Harsanyi thought this was ridiculous. He went on to use a partly logistic, but also a pathetic appeal by sarcastically stating all of the positive aspects of slaving in a plant for 30 years with minimal promotions. This tactic is harsh and to the point. Though he does not always come right out and state his opinion, the sarcasm is so strong that it is possibly more effective than stating his position directly.

The next argument that Harsanyi makes is that Obama’s idea of winning the “19th century back” as Harsanyi put it, is ridiculous and expensive. Obama said in his speech that more railroads should be built for transportation purposes. Harsanyi says, “this fixation with building an extraordinarily expensive, outdated and tax-funded rail system is a great example of why central planning undermines progress”. This counter argument is logical and is something that many citizens can believe to be true. Harsanyi also says, “someone already invented airplanes and cars, which, unlike trains, can be pointed in any direction we want, whenever we want, as often as we want”. This statement lists all the reasons why trains are logically less efficient and more expensive than cars and planes.

Though all of these arguments have a descent amount of evidence and rhetorical appeal, there is no correlation to the title of his column “Who are we in ‘Sputnik moment’?”. This was something that I found to be ineffective in his column. He did not mention anything about sputnik until the last two paragraphs. Bringing up Sputnik was a way for him to connect past events to the events that are happening today. Harsanyi believes that what Obama proposed in his State of the Union address may be similar to the actions made by the soviets in the “cold war”. He says, “The Soviet’s intense effort to erect a façade of accomplishment was achieved by investing in an unnecessary, costly, symbolic, ideology-driven project that did nothing for the aspirations of its citizens or its stagnant, dying economy”. This is a very harsh sentence that uses rhetorical appeal to convince the audience that this is not what anyone wants to happen. This may be effective, but it can also be a bit over the top. The style of Harsanyi’s writing can be fun to read, however, this style can become overbearing. Sarcasm can only go so far. I found this column to be too loaded with sarcasm. I found myself disliking his arguments because of how harsh and sarcastic each issue was. This took away from his message and caused me personally to become less interested in his opinion. He had some solid points, but the way he conveyed his opinion could’ve been more effective.

Dylan Ratigan's Show "Steel on Wheels" Challenges Students to use Entertainment to Bring Political Parties Together

2011-02-06T18:50:00.007-07:00

I walked into the University of Denver's Newman Center with my parents on the evening of January 28^thfor the live broadcast of Dylan Ratigan’s show ‘Steel on Wheels,’ but was quickly swept away from my folks when a lady asked if I was a college student. I said yes, she smiled, said great!, and shuffled me into Gates auditorium without my parents. I took slight offense to the separation from my parents and wound my way back to them. I entered Gates auditorium once more—this time with my parents--and the usher informed me that I should need to sit front and center because I look like a “brightly shining college student.” I agreed but insisted that my parents sit with me. Before Dylan Ratigan’s MSNBC show ‘Steel on Wheels’ even began, I had been stereotyped to fit the ‘item’ MSNBC wanted to broadcast. Shortly there after, the panel of commentators walked on stage, including Nicole Glaros, Managing Director of TechStars of Boulder, Matt Miller of The Washington Post and head of Left, Right & Center, and Andrew Jenks from MTV’s Word of Jenks (Aurora Advisors). The panelist I recognized immediately was Andrew Jenks, because his show targets my generation directly. The panel was carefully selected so that one or more of the members appealed to each and every member of the audience. From Dylan Ratigan’s comments and topics of debate, to the carefully chosen panel of debaters, ‘Steel on Wheels’ strategically used kairos and community commonplaces to appeal to a wide audience.

So first of all, a little background on Dylan Ratigan to better understand the purpose of his shows and the topics of debate. Dylan Ratigan is a television host that covers topics mainly on politics, global economy and relations, and financial markets. He critiques political parties and blames our recent economic failure on them. The particular subject of the January 28^th debate was the question of who creates jobs and how are we to get political parties to agree on this? Dylan Ratigan assumed the position of a politician standing directly in the middle of the two political parties, in reference to Obama’s recent State of the Union address (a very relevant issue). He believes that small business owners are the ones that truly are creating reliable jobs for people today, and that the government should therefore benefit small businesses over large corporations (Dylan).

The most fascinating part of the broadcast was the panel of debaters. Nicole Glaros holds very liberal ideas on business ownership, and made the point that when it comes to immigrants that want to open a business, we should lighten the process because after all, she said, who cares who owns the business as long as it creates jobs. Most questions related to immigrant rights were directed at Glaros given her sympathetic attitude toward the issue. She appealed to those seeking citizenship, and those who are simply seeking to open a new business.

Matt Miller hotly reiterated his opinion that the US economy needs serious reform, and the idea that keeping brains in our country regardless of where the brains come from would benefit our country greatly. Miller appealed to those sick of hearing garble from feuding political parties: an issue that is incredibly hot today.

I honestly only recognized the last of the panel: Andrew Jenks. Jenks appeals to my generation with his simple MTV show that aims to break through social barriers and reveal the hardships of different groups in society. His show’s topics range from nursing homes to professional cage fighters. But even more than that, Dylan Ratigan highlighted the fact that arts and entertainment is the only topic that both Democrats and Republicans can come together and agree upon civilly. So in this way Andrew Jenks serves as the mediator between the dueling parties, and is therefore our “only hope to spread the word of economic reform in the United States”, according to Ratigan. In the beginning, Jenks explained how he began college at the age of nineteen, but had a burning desire to videotape people and left college to pursue that dream. Everyone in the audience could relate to that as a commonplace, because after all, everyone has a dream. But aside from the political debate and his own aspirations, Jenks was the persona and linkage to his audience at the University of Denver: students the same age as he. Ratigan pointed to how Jenks really is the key to moving forward, not just because of his age but also because of his link to entertainment, a field that brings people together. Jenks responded along the lines of, “Unrelated to my show, it is sad to watch political parties fight mostly because we are never going to move forward as a country that way. You know, I work with groups of people who do not have time to care about politics because they are busy trying to feed their families or follow a dream. If you have a dream, you have to be willing to lose it all to gain it all. When you follow your dreams, you move forward, not sideways.” Jenks appeals to his-age audience members and hopes to spread his opinion that the young people of today need to move forward to make progress in this country. He suggests using the entertainment business to reach out to different groups as people of all different backgrounds come together for entertainment.

Having a diverse panel allowed for many different commonplaces so that each audience member could identify with at least one person on stage. Even seating was set up to appeal to a commonplace when I was seated in the front, so viewers would see students first. Through a strong panel of debaters that alluded to many different groups of people, and a linkage in Andrew Jenks who stands aside from all the political debate, Dylan Ratigan was able to create an environment of people with opinions on all ends of the spectrum.

Works Cited

Aurora Advisors Inc. "8 PM EST Watch Dylan Ratigan Town Hall Session on Jobs, Innovation « Naked Capitalism." Naked Capitalism. 28th Jan. 2011. Web. 06 Feb. 2011. [Online].

"Dylan Ratigan." Wapedia. Web. 06 Feb. 2011. .

Donations for the Dome, by Dish Harris

2011-02-06T18:48:00.003-07:00

On January 20, 2011, there was an article published in the Op-Ed section of The Denver Post about the dome on the capitol building in Denver. The dome has been in major disrepair for many years (“A 10-pound chunk of cast iron fell off in 2007”) and there is discussion about whether the estimated twelve million dollars is worth spending to keep up the historical prevalence of this building. The author argues that it is a lot of money but it is a necessary action. Four million of the dollars are to be taken from the State Historical Fund but the rest has to be privately raised. This money should be raised in a timely matter and if all of the state pitches in the other eight million dollars will not be too hard of a task. Some preservationists have argued that the money should not all come from the Historical Fund because it should be used on other projects but the author argues that “the dome project is exactly the kind of work the fund is supposed to support”.

The author uses kairos to show the urgency because this is such a current issue in our area. If money isn’t raised in a relevant time span then the building will fall farther into disrepair and it will only cost the state more to fix the building. Money needs to be raised soon and so not only does this article help to raise awareness about the building but it also can be used as an advertisement to help raise the money. The Denver Post is a widely read publication and so the author chose the newspaper to help broadcast the fact that the city needs help to raise money to help save this historical monument. On the same topic of a relevant time span, the author states, “the project cannot be allowed to languish for years if the private money fails to materialize”. This statement not only talks about the fact that people should donate but also that if the money does not appear then the Historical Fund should pitch in because as previously stated this is exactly the situations that the fund should be used for because it is a monument in the city of Denver.

In the first sentence of the article, the author states, “As icons go, it has few rivals in Colorado. So saving the state’s crumbling Capitol dome is a must”. Starting the article this way really points out the urgency of this issue and also has the possibility to touch a heart string of those who are Denver locals and do not want to see the city lose this monumental building. He uses different phrases to invoke pride out of the citizens of Denver. The first line of the article really shows how the citizens should feel about the dome because it shows that this dome is a big deal in not only the city but also the state. He gains sympathy from his audience by using guilt. For example, he makes two statements about the economy. The first is, “But with another gaping state budget shortfall, there is no extra money to save the dome”. The other is, “In this down economy, that's a tall order, but it's necessary”. These two statements help to show the reader the difficulty of the fundraising efforts and why they should help the efforts to raise the money quickly.

That same sense of urgency and showing the city of Denver just how bad the situation is also shows how the author forms his pathos in this article. This issue is obviously much more apparent in the city of Denver then it would be in any other city. This issue appeals completely to the emotions of the readers of The Denver Post. The citizens of Denver should want the building to be fixed and reconstructed because it is an icon in their city. The author uses this article to persuade the readers to take part in the fundraising efforts. He states that this campaign should involve “donations from foundations, corporations, and citizens” and it “could be a good community service project”. This community believes this is an icon in the city so they should all want to take part in the reconstruction process.

Overall, this piece about the capitol dome in downtown Denver has two main purposes. Its first purpose is to make the city of Denver aware of the situation with the crumbling capitol dome and show the urgency of the fundraising. The second purpose is an underlying theme that also has to deal with the fundraising. A newspaper is highly circulated and highly read so it was an opportune moment to advertise the efforts for the dome.

Works Cited

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17140350

The Denver Post Doesn’t Like Abuse By: Joey Glassman

2011-02-06T18:41:00.001-07:00

The editorial, “Leave immigrant law in the desert”, is about the issue of what to do with illegal immigrants in Colorado. There has been another bill introduced by Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, that the author of the editorial feels is unnecessary and redundant (The Denver Post). They feel this bill also may be too permitting of misconduct towards illegal immigrants, or people that “look” like illegal immigrants: “Lambert told The Post his bill goes a step further than earlier Colorado laws by allowing police to arrest people if there is probable cause to believe they are in the country illegally or if they have committed serious crimes or are facing deportation. The phrase ‘probable cause’ is most worrisome.” (The Denver Post) The editorial, by and large, is well written and strong.

The editor includes in the article a strong claim. He states that there is no point to putting a law in effect if there already are similar laws that aren’t being enforced. In other words, push more towards the laws that have already passed legislature. They’ve been passed, so use them. Shouldn’t we enforce the laws that have already been passed? I may not be an expert in law, but what is the point of the law if no one is going to enforce it? Also, is another similar bill really going to be any more effective than the last? If you put a bowl of water in front of a cat and it doesn’t drink, will putting down a mug with water compel the feline to sip? If yet another illegal immigrant bill is thrown on the table, will it help in discerning who is an illegal immigrant and who isn’t?

Another persuasive argument that the editor uses in the article is that giving police the ability to judge based on probable cause is a tricky proposition. The editor argues that “it could give law enforcement the green light to harass immigrants — illegal or otherwise.” (The Denver Post) This is a valid point. This may not be true for all, but with this bill in effect, police have a ticket-to-ride to judge who looks “illegal”. Imagine walking down a street and seeing a fellow of the Mexican persuasion strolling down the path. He is walking to his job as a construction worker to support his wife and two kids. This mild-mannered man is doing nothing wrong, right? Then, out of nowhere, a police officer in his patrol car stops the gentleman. After a bit of conversation, the officer puts the gentleman in cuffs, and takes him into the patrol car. They drive away to the police station. The once hard-working father is now a criminal for “looking” like an illegal immigrant, whether he is a legal citizen or not. What will his family do without his emotional and monetary support? The editor doesn’t want humans subject to cruelty or violence, and this is made more possible when police have the right to interrogate whomever they please if they feel it is “necessary”.

The editor was very timely about posting this editorial. It is very appropriate to the political current events. The Colorado bill was introduced by Sen. Kent Lambert in late January of 2011. As well, the author was very effective when integrating the Arizona bill regarding the same issue. The Arizona bill wasn’t introduced yesterday, but it is recent enough for people to still be sore about it. Comparing the two bills helps to get at a tender spot for some. This anger that the editor draws from his audience only strengthens the argument. The people that are angered by Arizona’s decision will not their state to do like Arizona.

So what is the point of being redundant? People get to hear what you want to say more than once.

The Denver Post Pushes for a Full Time Leader in Colorado, by Renee Andrews

2011-02-06T18:02:00.005-07:00

There is a recent flurry of political activity in Colorado higher than what many would consider normal. Denver’s previous mayor recently became governor of Colorado, a new secretary of state (Scott Gessler) was just elected, as well as a new treasurer (Walker Stapleton). In local politics, there seems to be a recent trend of working part time jobs in addition to the job a particular politician was elected for. Gessler plans to work five hours per week moonlighting for his previous law firm; Stapleton will be consulting for his previous firm as well; Attorney General John Suthers is a part-time law professor at both the University of Denver and University of Colorado- Colorado Springs. It is possible that the pay state officials receive is too low. Unfortunately, this relatively low pay leads to less time spent working on local political affairs which need to be addressed. A full-time economic director is a possible necessity given the state of the job market (The Denver Post, 2011). The editors of The Denver Post tackled the issue of payment of elected state officials in relation to the amount of time they are spending doing the job they were elected to perform. Throughout the editorial, Colorado needs full-time leaders, the editors address the issue in a way that keeps the concept relevant and important to the citizens of Colorado.

“If you haven't been warned, Scott Gessler Syndrome continues to spread across Colorado. And there's no cure in sight,” (The Denver Post, 2011). The opening line of the editorial vaguely introduces the subject at hand in a way that all people can relate to. Epidemics of disease are concepts that Colorado (and extending to global) citizens can understand and this analogy of politics to disease makes this connection. Immediately, the authors of this editorial address the current problem with a twist on wording to pull in the audience quickly and effectively. Throughout the editorial, the authors use common language in order to make a little light of the situation and make relevant comparisons to what is actually occurring with the politicians. For example, the phrase “It beats cleaning gutters, anyway,” (The Denver Post, 2011) is used to compare and explain Gessler’s statement that he would moonlight for his previous firm. Here he would be making somewhere around $22,000 annually for only five hours per week of work. Another example surfaces when discussing Dwayne Romero. Instead of working full time as leader of the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, he will work four day weeks and then travel to Aspen – “yeah, Aspen” (The Denver Post, 2011) – to moonlight for his old investment firm. The phrase, “yeah, Aspen,” addresses a commonplace that Coloradans tend to hold about money. Coloradans are aware and believe that Aspen is an expensive and luxurious mountain town reserved for those with money enough to pay for its high priced goods and activities. As with the previous examples, this phrase provides a connection the reader can make between one concept and another regarding pay. Finally, the closing sentence of the editorial introduces a maxim to effectively make the point that pay needs to be considered in order to ensure that the state government is using as much time as possible to work on state affairs: “Someone needs to be around the Capitol at night to turn off the lights,” (The Denver Post, 2011). Each of the aforementioned phrases aid in the communication from writer to reader of the main point of the article. They each help to support the argument in a way that does not blatantly state it, but still sends the message.

The phrases used throughout the editorial help to build the ethos of the editors. By using casual maxims and wording styles, the writers provide a sense of approachableness to the reader. This tactic makes the reader feel more comfortable through the reading process as well as more connected to the theme of the article. To establish further confidence in the readers, the editors used real examples and numbers when backing up their argument. Each time the editors addressed payment of each politician they presented the numbers each would be earning. This shows that the editors researched the topic significantly therefore giving them credibility and reliability when it comes to the information they provide.

There have been several changes to Colorado state government recently in terms of newly elected officials and these recent changes have and can lead to further alterations or continued mistakes. The opening line gives the reader a sense that the political scene in Colorado is starting to become a bit corrupt, or at least problematic, and that something needs to be done about it. Through the language used in the editorial, particularly in the first two sentences, the editors appeal to kairos very effectively. The authors demonstrate the currency of the issue by stating how recent each of the elections and appointments are and that the plans for each of the mentioned politicians are currently in the works or are already in play. The authors also bring up the issue of underpay, to which they stated would be addressed in January 30^th’s Sunday Perspective. This implies the notion that the issue is ongoing and will still need to be addressed at later dates. Finally, the authors address the issue of the current economic status of the country in relation to difficulty of finding jobs; an issue that most Americans are concerned about and hope to find a solution to sooner rather than later. From the very beginning of the editorial to the very end, the authors are sure to imply the urgency of the matter at hand.

The problem to which the editors are speaking as well as the argument they support is introduced quickly and effectively through use of maxims, common language, evidence, explanations, commonplaces, and strong appeal to kairos. Through these tools, the authors were able to communicate their stance as well as the issue at hand in a way that was easy for the readers to understand and relate to.

Works cited

The Denver Post. (2011, January 29). Colorado needs full-time leaders. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_17231076

Denver Post Editorial Urges Support for Big Air Event, by Sheridan Sleeper

2011-02-03T13:55:00.002-07:00

The recent editorial in the Denver Post titled, “Share Civic Center for Big Air event? You bet”, addresses the Big Air skiing and riding competition in downtown Denver. Freestyle skiers and snowboarders from all over the world, join together in downtown Denver to throw some of the best tricks seen in the World Cup. The event draws in hundreds of people and costs roughly $800,000. The ramp, built of steel, scaffolding, and man-made snow is “101 feet high, 300 feet long and 80 feet wide”. Although this event seems incredible there’s a catch. People are upset that the public park gets closed to the public for an event that costs more than $45 to attend. Also, it jeopardizes the condition of the park because of the construction and enormous crowds. This editorial is in favor of the event over preservation of the public park, in this specific case, because it is an honor to host the Big Air competition in Denver. This is such special event that most Denverites take pride in attending.

The article was published during a busy time for Colorado with the X Games beginning in Aspen, the Big Air competition, and the consist push for park conservation. Being a green city that runs mainly off of solar panels, people are concerned with the upkeep of Denver and maintaining the reputation of a clean city with clean parks. The authors use this time, or kairos, to voice their opinions that it is okay to host events such as Big Air in our parks seeing the attention it lures from the community. These events provide such a pleasure to viewers who attend and to have some of the best winter athletes in the world in downtown Denver is an honor. Many of the athletes performing between Tuesday and Wednesday traveled straight through Denver onto Aspen for the X Games where they’ll perform the same tricks on a much larger scale.

The authors provide a valid argument that people should be willing to give up a piece of Civic Park for such an extraordinary event. They push this argument through statements such as, “Most Denverites who work and live near Civic Center were, we suspect, as intrigued and entertained by the construction of this mega-ramp as we were, despite the inconvenience of not being able to walk across the park for a few days. The spectacle has been worth witnessing even if you had no intention of buying a ticket to watch it.” The colossal structure is quite amazing to see and there is a public viewing section in a part of the park that is free. This area is somewhat obstructed to viewers however. The statements made in support of their claims are sarcastic and tend to mock those in opposition to such an event. The end of the article states, “And with any luck, if they return to Civic Center a few days later, they'll find it just as it was before Big Air took center stage: open to one and all — as public parks should be, most of the time.” People need to be accepting of Big Air because this inconvenience only occurs once a year.

The style of the article is conversational and as a reader, one can feel this person would be approachable in public. They joke about the commercialization of Denver parks, but it is tastefully done and they avoid overkill. The commercialization of parks is a serious concern; in this article though, they show how a rare event is acceptable to host and people in disagreement are ridiculous. The authors are persuasive through their claim that, it would be nice for such an event to be free but if so, the $800,000 would come from tax payers. Using tax payers to pay for such an expensive event would create more problems then closing off part of a public for a week.

In order to prove their credentials, the writers provide support from city councilwoman, Jeanne Robb. She states, “I know there is a basic philosophical viewpoint in crossing the line and commercializing our parks, [but] to me, this is perfect for Civic Center Park. Sure, it's big. But let's see how it goes. It seems like everyone is getting really excited." The city was very much in favor of the event, which meant for those who were not, they had to deal. Including statements from someone such as Jeanne Robb, adds significantly to their persuasiveness. In addition, the numbers of sponsors who support this event as well as the types of sponsors contribute to the hype. To oppose such an event is absurd and those people are being difficult for the sake of arguing and creating controversy.

2010-06-04T10:59:00.000-06:00

Alex George: Final Draft of DenveRhetor (WRIT 1133)

2010-06-04T10:48:00.003-06:00

DenveRhetor Analysis: Art Gallery Thoughts
-Project 1-

On the first Friday of every month, the Art District on Santa Fe in downtown Denver holds an event called “First Friday Art Walk” where viewers have the opportunity to experience pieces of art from all over the world. The six blocks that make up Denver’s art district are home to more than thirty galleries, each displaying a variety of pieces. They’re all types of art from modern and contemporary to tribal and traditional. Each gallery has its own persona and style of artwork that makes it unique. There was one gallery in particular that embodied a number of interesting aspects and is therefore subject for a rhetorical analysis. The gallery allows unique individuals to connect as a group through the shared experience of interpreting art.
In order to properly analyze this gallery, it is important to understand the uniqueness of it. Allow your imagination to visit the gallery in an effort to gain a sense of familiarity with the layout. Upon entering the gallery it becomes very clear that you will be exposed to many different types of art. You are greeted by a wall that houses two large square canvases about three feet by three feet, and are hung side by side. They each have a very large abstract face drawn in a single bright color that is larger than the canvas can support and therefore drifts off of the surface. On the other side of the wall there is a series of four photographs that could be described at “creative lifestyle” portraits. They show four different people adorned with oversized glasses, shirts painted on them instead of wearing clothing, bright and exotic outfits flowing on a dancer, and even a close-up of a scruffy college student enjoying his Saturday night. All of these lifestyle shots are the exact same size and are hung next to each other on one wall. Directly across from these photographs are hanging sheets of chicken wire with bright yarn, string, and cloth woven into them to create a design. Behind the chicken wire are oversized sheets of watercolor paper with washes of color covering them. The paper is warped from the watercolor and is not flesh with the chicken wire, but instead is several inches behind it, mounted to the wall. In another open room the walls are covered in various squares and rectangles of plywood that have bold, organic and natural colors used as a background and bright, swirling continuous lines painted over the top. There is also a huge, hot pink and very conspicuously shaped paper Mache tower that is in the middle of the room. This tower connects the ceiling to the ground and had lime green vines wrapping around it. Next to the tower, twenty or so scientific sketches of flowers all hung in rows next to each other. They are all exactly the same size and are similarly sketched.
The exigence of the art gallery is the social purpose that it serves. It brings together different groups of people to interact and creates an important relationship. This relationship is significant because it encompasses a multitude of social classes, political views, financial backgrounds, and lifestyles. This particular gallery is also important because it is providing a place for this large array of people to come together, and is not primarily concerned with business and making a profit. They have created a niche for themselves in this respect and provided a place for creative energy to flow freely.
The audience for the gallery is comprised of a lot of different personalities. The initial introduction to the audience is young, liberal college students hanging on their friends, contrasted by the more sophisticated “business crowd” sipping wine and socializing. Of course there is a larger variety of people incorporated in the audience, the above example was simply provided to show the vast differences. Though this is an accurate description of the physical audience present at the gallery opening, the intended audience is even more interesting. The intended audience is individuals looking to be inspired. Regardless of if the people are young, old, wealthy, poor, educated, or uneducated, the intended audience is people who want to challenge their mind and allow themselves to think creatively. It is essentially anyone willing to allow themselves to interpret the art in their own way.
In the most literal sense, the purpose of this gallery is to provide the people of Denver with the opportunity to enjoy contemporary art. However, it seems to go even deeper than that. The noticeably intentional selection of art begs the interpretation and thought of its viewers. The wide array of styles, as described earlier, provides an opportunity for the individuals to connect with a number of pieces. It also creates an opportunity for a variety of people to come together in one space and interact with both each other and the art. This gallery creates a community that otherwise would not exist due to the fact that the intended audience plays a large role in the essence as well as the success of the gallery.
I wanted to create a piece of art that would accurately represent my argument. My argument was that the purpose of the gallery is to create a community that would not exist without the interaction of the intended audience. To accomplish this, I created a multi-media piece of art that incorporated different styles from the gallery itself. Some of the materials that I used included a piece of a picture, paper, paint, stickers, ink, jewels, and wood. My goal was to have all of the different medias compliment each other while still standing out, just as the pieces in the gallery did. I also wanted the collection of materials to represent the variations in the audience. For example, the small jewels represent the classy, more sophisticated crowd, while the orange wooden numbers represented the young, athletic college students. The piece was created to show the cohesive community that was formed as a result of the different styles of the art in the gallery.

The Santa Fe Art Walk: Art, Architecture and Ambiance

2010-05-31T20:20:00.001-06:00

My visit to the Art District on Santa Fe Drive during their first Friday of the month ‘art walk’ took me to a whole other planet. I was shocked and put in a state of awe by not just the wildly unappreciated art that is collected here but by the nature of the people that are housed by these streets and the voyeurs in which visit.

During my visit to Denver’s art walk I became enriched with the history and life that these streets entail. I couldn’t help myself but had to look into the background that lies within these buildings. The Art District became what it is in 2003, by the conjoining of seventeen different types of art-related museums, theaters, and galleries. This group was organized as a non-profit group and thus their mission statement was born: "The Art District on Santa Fe is dedicated to promoting public awareness of Santa Fe Drive as a unique art and cultural district, and furthering the arts and art education in the metropolitan community."

What I found most interesting about the Art District was not only the opportunity to see different kinds of art not just through the photography medium, but through the theater where they host plays every month, and even the tattoo shop that is included on this strip. The Art District is not blind to only one source, medium, or influence of art. Even in Santa Fe’s little coffee shop, there is canvas art hung on the walls, although I did notice that many of these portraits did not receive much attention, yet still had prices noted—indicating that they are working artists.

The diverse multiculturalism that the Art Walk defines is a multitude of observers, painters, musicians, gallery owners, dancers, restaurateurs and Santa Fe Drive residence. When I was just beginning to warm up to the vibe that the Art District brings, I found myself walking up a flight of stairs with a sign and arrow indicating there were more galleries in the upper floors. I then realized I was walking into a person’s studio apartment. Doors wide open, candles lit, art displayed, and snacks provided. I felt instantly uncomfortable just bombarding someone’s home and voyeuristically peering into their lives. My friends however, had no issue and reached for the bowl of provided pretzels and offered me one. I whispered to them, “Let’s go! We can’t just go waltzing in stranger’s homes! You just don’t do that!” Just minutes after my uncomfortable escape we had reached another supposed ‘gallery,’ but to my dismay we were in yet again…another stranger’s home! It was confusing to decipher which art was created by the artist and what was bought at Pier One. But the fact that these artists merge their lives into their galleries and welcome viewers is showing how in sync they are with their art. What these artists have going on here is more than just a “home business,” it’s their livelihood.

The smell of wine and the sound of music down Santa Fe made for not just an eclectic appeal, but the way the community is fully enriched in their craft resonates in the atmosphere. By having the first Friday Art Walk, average Joe’s and art critics alike are given the opportunity to be exposed to art’s many different mediums and twists in genre. The lack of direction and signage within the Art Walk allows viewers to mosey through galleries and apparently homes without a biased influence so that they are able to decide for themselves, which is ‘art’ and what is simply graffiti or a print at a coffee shop.

Art is defined as the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations and modes of expression. The Art Walk has become the place to be on the first Friday of the month. Its popularity allows the Denver community to express their interest in the art that is show cased during the Art Walk and in a way has become a work of art itself. It reminds people that outside of their small personal bubble they live their daily life in, there is more. More people to encounter, more places to see and more moments to remind you new creations are ever evolving around us. To allow not only the viewers to be surrounded by the unknown but also the shop owners and artists who one night will have the pleasure of finding or reencountering the delicious food, exotic dance, uplifting music or work of art, that takes their breath away.