summary blog: the tools to find the answers

It is both interesting and embarrasing to admit that over the course of the past ten weeks, my thoughts and opinions on certain topics like freedom of speech, sexual speech, harmful or offensive speech and the right to speak in certain places has dramatically changed. It has been extremely difficult for me to keep a solid opinion throughout our entire course.

How could that be? Is it fair that somedays and some situations cause me to think differently than others? Is that why the supreme court struggles with consistency as well? How come certain cases receive certain burdens of truth while others do not?

The only technique that allowed me to develop strong opinions was to research and learn every detail about precedent setting cases. That way, I knew what to apply and how to think based on the way others have thought in the past. However, this brought up very difficult issues for me. How are we really going to reach truth if we apply past thoughts and decisions? Aren't things changing everyday? How is it fair to use previous opinions instead of your own?

The issue of animal violence depictions is a great example of how modern times are calling for new thinking. Instead of using Stevens vs. U.S., we must look to other areas in society for answers. I'm really going to go with Chafee on this one and say that the U.S. has a great social interest in stopping the distribution of animal violence depictions.

While animal rights is an issue I will always be concrete and passionate about, other topics like sexual speech still confuse me. I find myself being very absolute in my beliefs but at the same time, wanting a good amount of freedom. The internal warfare that has been going on inside me between too much freedom and not enough has been painful! This course has challenged my brain in a way it never has been before! My brain is sore in the best way, I cannot thank everyone enough for twisting my mind into knots.

I feel like I am leaving this course with many unanswered questions BUT the tools to find the answers.

Animal Cruetly, We Have a Duty to Protect the Animals

The question in communicative justice raised by the case of United States vs. Stevens is whether or not the law with regards to banning depictions of illegal animal cruelty is constitutional or not. Although the law has been deemed unconstitutional in this case, should the law Congress passed be overturned or upheld? Furthermore, does the government have to provide a compelling reason for banning this speech or would a lower level of scrutiny suffice? Is the law too overbroad? I claim that the law Congress passed is constitutional and should be upheld. While the law many seem overbroad, the second part of the law that agrees to uphold “scientific, journalistic, religious or political value” makes it’s clear what is allowed and not allowed by the law.
In United States vs. Stevens, Mr. Stevens claimed that the animal cruelty law restricted his freedom of speech. As the civil libertarian, Zechariah Chafee argues, “the individual type of expression is important but that it does not weigh as heavily in the balance as does speech concerning the social interest.” The social interest in this case is the protection of animals. The majority of society feels that it is wrong to harm animals. Therefore, the depiction of this cruelty should be wrong as well. Chafee's use of The Social Interest Clause comes into play here. The Social Interest Clause, according to Chafee, is an attainment of truth when people are well informed on public issues. Therefore, if a animals rights organization has to show depictions of animal cruelty, that form of expression should be protected since they are working towards bringing truth to light. In the same way that the distribution of child pornography is wrong, the distribution of animal cruelty or animal pornography is wrong. It is the duty of our government to protect the people and animals living in our country and this law was designed to do just that.
Historically the practice has been that “fighting words (Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire), some kinds of incitement (Brandenburg vs. Ohio) obscenity (Bethel vs. Fraser) and starting in 1982, no obscene pornography involving children (New York vs. Ferber) are outside the protection of the First Amendment.” (nytimes.com) Nonobscene pornography involving children was “a major constitutional shift…it is the only place in the First Amendment law where the Supreme Court has accepted the idea that we can constitutionally criminalize the depiction of a crime.” This same constitutional shift should be applied to the issue of the depiction of animal cruelty. Cruelty to animals is not much different than cruelty to a child.

For the same five reasons that New York vs. Ferber was different than Miller vs. California, animals should be protected. First, the court should have a very compelling interest to protect animals (like they protect children) because both parties are marginalized pieces of society that often cannot speak for themselves. Second, the distribution of animal cruelty images is directly related to animal cruelty itself (in the same way that they found for child porn) Third, producing visual animal cruelty such as crush videos, there is a market being created for such distgusting behavior. Fourth, pictures of animals in pain has no artistic value and lastly, animal cruelty does not need to be deemed obscene before it can be made illegal. Just because there hasn't been much precedent on this issue, doesn't mean that something can't be done about it now.
Judge D. Brooks Smith, writing for the appeals court majority said, “While animals are sentient creatures worthy of human kindness and human care,” he wrote, “one cannot seriously contend that the animals themselves suffer continuing harms by having their images out in the marketplace.” I claim that there is no way to tell whether or not animals are harmed by images of their suffering. One cannot seriously claim that they are not harmed by this; there is no way to tell. Until humans have access to the animal mind, there will be no way to prove. Until then, we must respect these creatures by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Animals should be protected from harm when possible.
While the Supreme Court overturned this law due to overbreadth, I claim that the law is not overbroad and states clearly what is not protected under the law. Looking at the actual words of the law, the SLAPS clause added to the end is a clear depiction of what should be protected and what should not be. In the same way that Mapplethorpe’s images were protected, depictions of animal cruelty used in scientific, political, journalistic or religious ways should be protected too. In October of this year, President Obama asked the Supreme Court and Congress to take a second look at the law. Because the President has veto power, the executive branch should yield to the President’s legislative goals. To justify my claim, I will rely on the above following forms of reasoning. Philosophically, doctrinally, structurally, socially and textually, I claim that the law Congress passed is constitutional and should be upheld. While the law many seem overbroad, the second part of the law that agrees to uphold “scientific, journalistic, religious or political value” makes it’s clear what is allowed and not allowed by the law.

Ali Al Timimi (post 2 revision)

The question in communicative justice raised by the case of Al Timimi vs. the U.S. is to what extent, when the nation faces war or a national emergency or some other threat to its national security, should speech that goes against the U.S. be protected? I believe that the imminent and immediate incitement standard suggested by the 1969 case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio should apply during times of war or during times that national security is threatened. As philosopher John Chafee argues, any form of political speech that promotes self-government should be protected. Furthermore, according to philosophers like Emerson, Haiman and Baker, words that work towards promoting self-fulfillment, should be protected since “growth is necessary for an individual.”

The case of Ali Al Timimi who was recently convicted for urging listeners to travel to Pakistan and take up arms against the American soldiers he thought would soon be sent to Afghanistan. A grand jury accused Al-Timimi of saying things that incite danger for the American people. The government then convicted him for treason; defined as a crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Also, he could have been convicted of violating the old Smith Act of 1940, defined as “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of, or to affiliate with, any such association.”

Historically, speech like this has been protected until it “incites limitless lawless action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government couldn’t punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

Because Ali Al Timimi spoke these words very soon after the September 11^th attacks, the large majority of the American people felt that he was out of line and offensive. While some of what Timimi said could be seen as harmful, it was much more so offensive so the use of the offense principle would support my argument. While much of what Timimi said was harmful, I would argue that it did not completely incite danger. He spoke his views and spoke out against the U.S. but in a political manner. It could be said that he needed to speak this way for his own “necessary growth.” I would argue that if Ali Al Timimi were to return to trial today for the same crimes committed, he would not have the same punishment. I believe it what the majority cultural values that landed this man behind bars. In terms of structural deference, the legislative branch must yield to the sovereign powers of the executive branch in determining the motives behind threats against the U.S. during times of war. It would be up to the Supreme Court to decide how to handle what Timimi said, no judicial branch should have the power to convict someone of treason, especially during times of war.

Having proven my case, I claim that Ali Al Timimi engaged in a form of expression that helped him with personal growth. The words he used may have intended meant to incite harm but it never got that far. I truly believe that the cultural values of the time made the Supreme Court sensitive to words that were close to being a form of treason or a violation of the Smith Act. However, looking at the context of his background and the outcome of his leadership, he was not in violation of either.

The question in communicative justice raised by the case of Al Timimi vs. the U.S. is to what extent, when the nation faces war or a national emergency or some other threat to its national security, should speech that goes against the U.S. be protected? I believe that the imminent and immediate incitement standard suggested by the 1969 case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio should apply during times of war or during times that national security is threatened. That being said, Brandenburg vs. Ohio would support my idea that words that don’t aim to incite should be protected, even during times of war.

The Westboro Baptist Church (post 3 revision)

The question in communicative justice raised by the case of The Westboro Baptist Church vs. The United States of America is to what extent is The Westboro Baptist Church protected by the First Amendment? In other words, to what extent can the government punish Westboro? I claim that since The Westboro Church engages in fighting words, they are punishable by the Supreme Court. The Westboro group uses words that should not be valued in a marketplace to truth. They use words and make statements that should not be protected politically or in order to promote individual self-fulfillment. Using all three philosophical arguments from John Mill, John Stuart Mill, John Chafee, Emerson, Haiman and Baker the Westboro should be punished by the government of the United States. Protecting their speech is not essential to the pursuit of truth, the promotion of self-government or self-fulfillment.

Historically, individuals and group of people have been punished for using the same types of “fighting words.” In the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire of 1942, Chaplinsky was convicted of violating the public laws of New Hampshire by using words that were “offensive, derisive or annoying to any other person who is lawfully in any street of other public place.” Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, rejecting the chance that his words were protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided these words were likely to “inflict injury” upon the listener or “incite an immediate breach of the peace.” This case famously divided expression into two categories: that which has social value towards finding truth (worthwhile speech) and that, which has no social value (worthless speech). Within the category of worthless speech, there are two sub categories of “fighting words:” words that inflict injury upon the listener or words that incite an immediate breach of peace.

In similar cases, judges have established that these types of words are not socially valuable and should not be protected. The majority of our society feels that fighting words like the words used by the Westboro Church both injure the listener and incite a breach of peace. When Westboro members picket the funerals of heterosexual soldiers, they are injuring the family members at the funeral. When they hold up signs saying hurtful things towards homosexuals, they are asking for a breach of the peace and they harm the people they target their messages to. Based on their use of fighting words, I would apply the harm principle used by John Stuart Mill to my argument. Since their words are harmful and aim to injure, the First Amendment should not protect their words.

Under Virginia v. Black, the actions by the Westboro move toward provocation and even true threat given the “captive audiences” who might be present at funerals and the intrusions of the sounds. Since they come to places like funerals, often times, the people they target are members of a captive audience who don’t have much of a choice but to listen to their hateful words. The court case of Virginia v. Black dealt with the concept of captive audiences as well. When a burning cross was placed on the property of an African American family, the family had no choice but to be involved in the act of expression. Since the burning cross was placed there in order to inflict injury and intimidation, it was not protected. In Justice Thomas’ dissent, he argues that burning crosses become more behavior than speech. In the same way, picketing funerals and holding up signs is a behavior more than a speech, a behavior that seeks to incite.

Hate speech should only be protected when it has scientific, artistic or political value. If the hate speech is used simply as a form of behavior, harm, offense or injury, it should not be protected under the law. As soon as it steps over the line from having value, to hurting people, it becomes illegal. The question in communicative justice raised by the case of The Westboro Baptist Church vs. The United States of America is to what extent is The Westboro Baptist Church protected by the First Amendment? In other words, to what extent can the government punish Westboro? I claim that since The Westboro Church engages in fighting words, they are punishable by the Supreme Court. The Westboro group uses words that should not be valued in a marketplace to truth.

the tin drum- offensive & illegal (post 5)

The question in communicative justice raised by the film, The Tin Drum, is whether or not or to what extent the film is considered to be a form of child pornography. I claim that The Tin Drum is a form of child pornography since it promotes sexual performances by a child under the age of 16 by taking part in and distributing material which depicts such a performance. According to New York v. Ferber, the statute defines “sexual performance” as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and “sexual conduct” is in turn defined as an actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sad-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.

As philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn argues, protecting certain types of speech is not essential to the pursuit of truth. According to him, political speech should be protected while worthless speech or private speech has less protection. Philosophically, The Tin Drum is considered to be unprotected child pornography that does not contribute to worthwhile speech. Historically, The Tim Drum was one of the first occurrences of this type of child pornography. Those who wish to believe that it is not child pornography seem to think that it was made for artistic and historical purposes. However, taking account the context of modern times, a film like this would be banned.

In cases that have followed this film, people have been convicted of child pornography for lesser crimes. Children have been punished for taking photos of themselves and young couples have been prosecuted for sending promiscuous text messages to each other’s cell phones. While these examples are considered to be child pornography according to the law, they do not nearly compare to the offensive material seen in The Tin Drum. Looking at the actual law, the boy in the Tin Drum is participating in “sexual conduct” which means he is simulating sexual intercourse and masturbation.

The creators of this film are promoting and distributing this offensive and illegal material. The specific scene that comes to mind is when the little boy is resting his head on the woman’s genital area while laying in a bed. It is very obvious that this scene exists to re-create or simulate sexual intercourse or oral sex. Because this scene shows a child under the age of 16 participating in sexual acts, it is considered to be lewd and offensive. The majority of our society believes it is wrong for children to participate in sexual acts. It is furthermore even worse for an older person to participate in these acts with a child. For social, philosophical and legal reasons, The Tin Drum is a prime example of child pornography.

Because of the above reasons and grounds, I believe that The Tin Drum is a form of child pornography since it promotes sexual performances by a child under the age of 16 by taking part in and distributing material which depicts such a performance. According to New York v. Ferber, the statute defines “sexual performance” as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and “sexual conduct” is in turn defined as an actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sad-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.

sexual speech should be protected only if it has certain value, but never as much as political speech (post 4)

The question raised in communicative justice is whether or not words, images and sounds that stimulate erotic or sexual thoughts should be granted the same protection as political speech? I claim that this type of speech is “worthless” instead of worthwhile. Therefore, it should not be valued in the marketplace of ideas that is protected by the First Amendment. Adults should have the right to create such speech for private purposes but otherwise; it should not be distributed for public consumption and furthermore, it should not be protected the same way that political speech is protected. However, If the sexual speech proves to have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, it should be protected the same way that political speech is.

According to the philosophers Alexander Meiklejohn and John Chafee, political speech should be protected since it promotes self government but there should be less protection given to speech that is considered to be worthless or private. Speech that is deemed sexual has no value in the test to finding truth. For this reason, I would also agree with the philosophical grounding from John Milton and John Stuart Mill. Since sexual speech is not necessary to finding truth in the marketplace of ideas, it should not be protected as heavily as speech that would be considered worthwhile in the same marketplace of ideas.

In addition to the philosophical grounding for my argument, I agree with the “offense” theory approach to pornography: that which offends should be banned. Since sexual speech does not physically harm anyone, I would not lean towards the harm theory in regards to my argument. Since many average people are offended by sexual speech, the offense theory will be applied. If the sexual speech is offensive, it is in turn obscene. The definition of obscene I would use in this argument is “anything that may be deemed by the average person to be sexually arousing.” If a TV commercial is trying to sell a product using speech or language that is meant to sexually arouse, it should be banned. If this commercial used sexual speech in a political or scientific context, it would be protected under Miller v. California which I discuss in further detail below.

While I argue that sexual speech should be banned from the public marketplace, adults have the right to create such speech for private use, distribute such speech for private consumption and receive such speech. If an adult wishes to “sext” another adult, sexual speech in that context should be allowed. He/She is not speaking sexually in a public setting; they have the right to choose whether that speech is worthwhile for them personally. In addition, they have the right to create sexual speech and distribute it in private. If an adult wishes to “sext” another adult a sexual picture of himself or herself, they have the right to do so in the privacy of their own home. They should also be allowed to receive such speech. As soon as sexual speech reaches a public level, it should not be protected the same way political speech is protected.

To support my argument on doctrinal grounds, I look to the previous case, Regina v Hicklin of 1868. The Hicklin test of 1868 tests obscenity in this way, “whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” This quote supports my idea that sexual speech should not be protected the same way as political speech in a public context. Such children and young adults are apart of the public marketplace they should be protected from immoral influences of sexual speech. If the sexual speech is in a private setting, it should be protected to the fullest, since between two adults, it does not threaten to leave an immoral influence.

Furthermore, I look towards Chaplinsky v. N.H., a case which refused to protect the lewd and obscene on the grounds that it is not worthwhile speech. Furthermore, I would like to look to Miller v. California that works on the same offense theory as I have. Miller v. California supports the idea that messages are banned UNLESS proven to have serious value (either scientific, political, or artistic).In order to overturn Roth vs U.S., I will use my philosophical groundings to argue that even though there may be some sexual speech cases that have “social value,” that form of speech should still not be protected the same way political speech is. It must have either a scientific, political, or artistic value in order for it to be protected.

There should be different levels of protection applied to different types of media. For example, books should receive more protection than broadcast or radio since the latter media have a “captive” audience that cannot always select what they see and hear. When a person buys a book, they know what type of book they are searching for and the books genre or message should be explicit to the reader before they even open the book. Moreover, web cams/chat rooms should receive a higher level of protection than cable. Since web cams are personal and chartrooms are divided by purpose or genre, cable is considered to have a more “captive” audience that would not be able to have as much freedom to choose the information they would receive.

The question raised in communicative justice is whether or not words, images and sounds that stimulate erotic or sexual thoughts should be granted the same protection as political speech? I claim that this type of speech is “worthless” instead of worthwhile. Therefore, it should not be valued in the marketplace of ideas that is protected by the First Amendment. Adults should have the right to create such speech for private purposes but otherwise; it should not be distributed for public consumption and furthermore, it should not be protected the same way that political speech is protected. However, If the sexual speech proves to have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, it should be protected the same way that political speech is.

The Westboro Baptist Church: A Hateful Organization that Violates the very Foundation of our Nation (blogpost 3)

The question in communicative justice raised by the case of The Westboro Baptist Church vs. The United States of America is to what extent is The Westboro Baptist Church violating the First Amendment when they picket, speak publicly or privately in regards to homosexuals, American soldiers and the war in Iraq. I claim that The Westboro Baptist church is guilty of “intimidating and causing fear in a certain group of individuals based on their sexual orientation.”

It is the government’s responsibility to protect the inherit rights of it’s citizens. Because The Westboro Baptist church causes emotional violence and disturbance of the peace, they are guilty of violating the First Amendment. It is the government’s responsibility to convict them of causing violence in others. As John Stuart Mill and John Milton argue, the First Amendment allows for the sharing of ideas in a marketplace. The goal of the First Amendment is to allow American citizens the chance of finding truth through dialogue. They would make the distinction between worthwhile speech and worthless speech.

Using Milton and Mill as philosophical grounding for my argument, I would say that the speech of The Westboro Baptist Church would be considered worthless by Mill and Milton. Furthermore, the Westboro Baptist Church’s ideals have no part in the journey to truth, for anyone. In previous similar cases, Judges have established that having the “intent to intimidate represents a “true threat” and true threats, such as expression directed at a person or group of persons that places the victim in fear of bodily harm or death, are not protected by the First Amendment.” This quote, taken from Justice O’Connor who ruled in the 1992 case, R.A.V. v. St Paul, describes that actions like cross burning or funeral picketing are done so in order to cause fear.

The actions taken by The Westboro Baptist church are examples of hate crimes motivated by the sexual orientation of others. Because their actions are considered group hatred (or hate targeted to a certain group), they are violating the First Amendment, “the only way to identify group hatred as the motivation is by statements the perpetrator has made or by other symbolic behavior engaged in before, during or after the commission of the crime.” This quote, taken from Franklyn S. Haiman, a member of the Supreme Court Case against Todd Mitchell, a young back black who was convicted of aggravated battery, demonstrates that the motivation behind these acts is the real factor we should be looking at.

The signs, the verbiage and the actions of The Westboro Baptist Church are driven or motivated by hatred and that is not constitutional. The majority of our society believes that every American has the right to the pursuit of Happiness. We embrace diversity and the American Dream, whatever that may be for the individual. We voted an African American president into office and women have more rights and equality than ever before. Why can’t we grant those same rights for homosexuals living in America? They have the right to a peaceful assembly at a funeral and the U.S. government should be protecting those rights.

I would apply the highest level of scrutiny to this case. The fact that The Westboro Baptist is able to instill this great amount of fear in American citizens is wrong. It should be stopped immediately. If Americans do not have the ability to pursue happiness, whatever that may be for them, in the peaceful ways that they choose, then our inherit rights that Americans are born with, are being violated and taken away. Everyone has the right to a peaceful funeral. Everyone has the right to live a life of love and to choose whom that love be directed to. If we take away an American’s chance of peace, love and happiness, we would be taking away the very foundations our country was built on.

The question in communicative justice raised by the case of The Westboro Baptist Church vs. The United States of America is to what extent is The Westboro Baptist Church violating the First Amendment when they picket, speak public ally or privately in regards to homosexuals, American soldiers and the war in Iraq. I claim that The Westboro Baptist church is guilty of “intimidating and causing fear in a certain group of individuals based on their sexual orientation.”

Al Timimi: Set Him Free-mi (blogpost 2)

When the nation faces war or a national emergency or some other threat to its national security, the imminent and immediate incitement standard should apply. Brandenburg vs. Ohio should not apply during times of war or during times that national security is threatened. Immediately after terrorist attacks or national security threats, “bad tendency” should apply. Schenck vs. U.S. demonstrates how “bad tendency” should be applied. At all other times, when the nation is considered to be “at peace” and not threatened, Brandenburg vs. Ohio should apply. If we were considered to be at war, Brandenburg vs. Ohio would not apply. All speech and action should be protected up until immediate incitement.

Given the standard that has been set by the above, and the fact that he spoke before wartime, Al Timimi should be protected by the first amendment. His conviction is considered unconstitutional. However, because he is guilty of “bad tendency” Timimi should be fined or imprisoned for committing the act of treason. A life sentence of imprisonment is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment in the case. Since Timimi stayed in the United States and did not travel with his friends to Pakistan, I would say he did not incite any action.

My philosophical reasoning behind these decisions follows that of Post who believes that self government should be promoted through political speech and that there are certain contexts that allow for certain speech. Because Timimi was teaching to a small group of Muslim friends, his religious beliefs that he chose to share with friends should be protected. Because we were not at war when Timimi spoke these words, my precedent comes from Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Timimi is guilty of “advocating ideas” not “advocating illegal action.” This case goes beyond “clear and present danger” and has more to do with the issue of incitement. If Timimi had taken up arms and killed U.S. Soldiers himself, he would be guilty of advocating and carrying out illegal actions.

In this specific case, Al Timimi has the burden of proving his innocence to a court that is scared and biased by terrorist attacks. Like we discussed in class: would Timimi be convicted if the attacks on September 11^th had never happened? What if he said these things now instead of then? The fact that there isn’t consistency in these answers and decisions shows that Timimi deserves a second trail, a second review of the decisions we made for his life.

The government needed to have a strict scrutiny level to restrict this category of speech. If they are going to imprison this man for his life, there should be more than a rational or substantial reason to be involved. What Timimi did is no different from Brandenburg did in 1969. Both Brandenburg and Timimi have the right to express their ideas without encouraging or taking part in any illegal actions. The fact that Timimi was a Muslim man speaking just days after the September 11^th attacks does not mean he is deserving of a harsher punishment than Brandenburg was forty years ago.

If the president of the United States had declared a war on Al Qaeda or on any Middle Eastern Country, then Timimi would be speaking out against the United States during a time of war, which is considered treason or bad tendency. What he would be doing then would be comparable to what Schenck did in 1919. Furthermore, I would apply the harm principle to Timimi’s case. His words did not physically harm anyone. His words did not lead to personal action. Timimi spoke to an audience much like Marc Antony did many years ago.

If I were a supreme court justice reviewing Timimi’s case, considering a first amendment appeal of his case, I would uphold Brandenburg vs. Ohio, ONLY if we were considered to be in war at the time. If we were not officially declared to be in a war, I would overturn the application of Brandenburg vs. Ohio for prosecuting incitements against the government. Depending on the wartime or not, I would overturn Timimi’s case, granting him a lesser punishment for his words. Again, I would apply the harm principle. Since Timimi never harmed anyone by his words, I would grant him the FOE to say the things he did. Since I most agree with Post, a philosopher from Chapter 15 from our text, Timimi’s speech would be protected. The context in which he spoke is acceptable and should considered to be private speech. Given the facts of this case, I would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision to keep Al Timimi in prison for life.

494 Blog Post #1

Laws governing communication should primarily protect the individual and their universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group.

I would insist that film makers in Dubai have a right to their own set of rules, in their own country. If a film they produced were shown in the U.S., that film should be screened with our standards but that individual has the right to express their own beliefs even if those beliefs assert themselves against a larger group.

In the case of public schools, it should be required that all forms of creation stories are taught. When a child is fully educated on all sides to the creation story, that child will be able to make decisions for themselves. For example, I went to private High School and it my religion class, we learned the classic catholic creation story. In addition, in my Earth Science and Biology classes, we learned about Darwin, natural selection, and the many other aspects to the belief of evolution.

It was up to us students to decide what we wanted to believe. Many of us ending up blending what we had learned in both classes. If a student attends a private University however, that school has the option of choosing what it teaches, because it is privately funded. Public schools should be teaching all different forms of creation.

Fear spoils freedom’s promise- first post spring qtr

I would say the most pressing communication justice issues currently are freedom of speech issues that have to do with voicing opinions about sexual orientation, funerals of soldiers and "ownership" of opinions on blogs. However, what I rank as important or in need of attention is very different from what other other people would say is important. No matter how disturbed or passionate I am about a certain issue, I am aware that I am constantly respecting the opinions of others.

Because of my experience and moral guidelines, I value certain issues that others do not. For example, in class today, Jordan and I were discussing which settings/situations should be allowed freedom of speech. Jordan thought that picketting at a funeral should be allowed but I disagreed. Because it attacks one's character (an issue of slander/libel) than that person should be protected, even after death. Furthermore, because I hold funerals to be very sacred and personal, I don't think picketters should be allowed at them. In the same way, I would not allow picketters at a wedding or any other socially sacred ritual.

Because Jordan thought that picketters should be allowed, he may be telling me that he does not value funerals the same way I do. What is interesting about the issues of communication justice is that they are always changing. What we talk about right now and what we deem as important may change in a few days from now- and it will drastically change a few years from now. Because of this, communication justice issues are always evolving, making it a truly intriguing issue to discuss.

Major Persuasive Project

Travis the Chimp and our Ultimate Reality; Students Don’t Care about Animals

          An Editorial for Newsvine.com

            By: Gabrielle Ashton Evans

March 10^th 2009

 

 

Audience: The subscribers and viewers from Newsvine.com come from all over the world. I expect residents from Seattle to read this piece as well as animal lovers or frequent visitors to the site. I know there are a lot of people in the greater Seattle area that really do care about animals so It will be interesting to see their comments and the number of votes this article receives.

 

Analysis: This editorial will be appealing to my audience because many people in Seattle are animal lovers but they also feel like the minority, not many people do care. I know that Newsvine members are interested in all types of news and the opinions of other members. Most likely they will be searching for the type of information within my editorial and they will accidentally stumble upon it. Many Newsvine members are young college students and they might have opposite views that I do, it is likely that they will be reading this article as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Travis the chimp has been in the spotlight for years. Whether it was in Old Navy or Coca Cola commercials, Travis has been a friendly face on TV for many. What we didn't know was that Travis was going to be getting much more media attention. In the past few weeks many stories have been done on Travis because he attacked a family friend by mauling her face and ripping apart the palms of her hands. What Travis did was wrong and everyone in America feels terrible for the poor woman not many people feel bad for Travis. Most of them say things like, "well of course the chimp did that, he's a wild animal!" or "that's what you get for keeping a chimp for a pet" but the people that feel bad for Travis, because he's Travis, are few and far between. 

Unfortunately, Travis is not the only animal who has been looked over. In America, millions of animals roam the streets homeless or spend their days and nights in cages. Most of these animals are “put to sleep” or more realistically, killed because there just isn’t room for them and breeders keep on breeding, preventing the mutts and kittens from making it to a loving home. Every animal deserves a home and a chance at a happy life and for many people that’s obvious. However, how do we convince the other half of the nation, the larger half, that animal cruelty is wrong? Better yet, how do we convince them that animals have a worth and inalienable rights, because they’re creatures- like us.

Sources say Travis the chimp lived a fairly human lifestyle. He enjoyed TV, surfing the Internet, sleeping in his bed and dressing himself. He ate at the table with the rest of the family and enjoyed many things humans enjoy as well. While this may seem cute and maybe fascinating to many Americans, it deep disturbs people like me, animal lovers. A real animal lover loves not because the animal is cute or funny but because the animal deserves to be happy like the rest of us creatures. Travis never wanted to life he had. He's a wild animal and deserves to enjoy the life of a wild chimp. The fact that he lashed out and attacked a family friend only supports this idea. After 15 years of being on camera, no wonder Travis went bananas. He just couldn't take it anymore. 

             Today in my persuasive writing class we discussed PETA and the persuasive videos they show in the hopes of rallying members and preventing animal cruelty. The responses from students only support my theory even further: most students don't care about animal rights. The Catalyst, a Seattle University newsletter, took a poll in last month's edition on which issues were most important to Seattle University students. I was appalled to find out Animal Rights was tied in last place for the least important social issue. The only other issue that fell this low was the issue of student loans. Student loans vs. Animal Rights? Really? I struggle with this because in my mind, the life of an animal is worth much more than money or the ability to borrow money from a bank. But like I said, I'm alone in this battle. 

 What is it going to take for people to care more about the life of an animal? Do we need more graphic images? More terrifying statistics? According to the Humane Society of the Untied States, 6-8 million cats and dogs are euthanized in shelters each year while only 3-4 million are adopted. PETA's videos include some of the most horrific footage I have ever seen but after showing some of the videos, the students in class continue to laugh and joke around. For them, life goes on. Many people don't see animals as being even close to as worthy of value as humans, so they struggle to grant them the natural rights that seem so obvious to me. For the above reasons, I am extremely frustrated with people on this issue, everyday. Why do so many people enjoy the bliss of ignorance and turn a blind eye when they see animals suffer? 

 

**Included in the article on Newsvine.com, I have posted a few pictures of Travis

**link to the actual article on Newsvine.com: http://evansg.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/04/2505714-travis-the-chimp-and-our-ultimate-reality-students-dont-care-about-animals-

An Analysis of Jordan Laine's Podcast

2. a. audience- jordan's fantasy sports podcast does a really good job of incorporating numerous audiences: men, women, fantasy sports veterans, new people to the fantasy game, critics and lovers of fantasy sports. The best potential audience would be people that are not familiar with fantasy sports or maybe women since Jordan explains women make up only 12% of fantasy sports players. He effectively addresses these numerous audiences by explaining how the fantasy game works, by being emotionally and logically appealing and by the tone of his voice. It felt like I was just having a conversation with Jordan about one of his favorite passions. 

b. genre and publication- I think a podcast was a perfect choice for the medium of his major persuasive project. The sound affects, expert snippets and audio appeal really support the idea of fantasy sports. Those people who are likely to play fantasy sports are also more likely to click on itunes and listen to this podcast for themselves. 

3. a. Jordan effectively framed communicated and persuaded me to be interested in fantasy sports. After listening to the podcast, I better understand the issue and I get a good sense of how it works. I also feel more confident in my ability since Jordan made it clear that beginners have the advantage, they win a lot of fantasy games since they lack the realistic experience of sports. 

b. Jordan addresses a few disagreements one may  have with his argument but I feel like there could be room for more. I don't play/have an interest in fantasy sports so I'm a little biased but I still feel like there should be a few more points that really drive the point home: fantasy sports are fun and easy to play. He does a good job of establishing credibility by citing a few experts and a female player of the game. The third person narrative also emphasizes his level of experience with the issue he is talking about. ** In this section, I would add a few more snippets about why its so fun. Maybe add some examples about a few close games you had or a game that sticks out in your mind. There is a lot of usage of logos but it would be good to add more personal ethos and pathos. 

4. a/b.Jordan uses a couple really good sound bytes from GarageBand that enhance the feel of the podcast. I feel like I am apart of something bigger because of the dramatic investigative clips and sports sounds. There are no visuals, since it is a podcast.

c. I think Jordan balances summary and analysis very well. 

d. I think Jordan did the best on this section. I have never discussed fantasy sports so this podcast did a good job of persuading my interest. The podcast form was a perfect use of medium for this issue/idea/concept.

e. The podcast is very well structured. The beginning, middle and end are very obvious and flow nicely together. It was easy to listen to and kept my attention throughout the 3 minutes. Jordan mentioned that he is going to be adding a few more minutes to the podcast but the first half I am analyzing today looks really good. I'm excited to listen to the final piece. 

Travis the Chimp and our Ultimate Reality; Students Don’t Care about Animals (Major Persuasive Project)

Travis the chimp has been in the spotlight for years. Whether it was in Old Navy or Coca Cola commercials, Travis has been a friendly face on TV for many. What we didn't know was that Travis was going to be getting much more media attention. In the past few weeks many stories have been done on Travis because he attacked a family friend by mauling her face and ripping apart the palms of her hands. What Travis did was wrong and everyone in America feels terrible for the poor woman not many people feel bad for Travis. Most of them say things like, "well of course the chimp did that, he's a wild animal!" or "that's what you get for keeping a chimp for a pet" but the people that feel bad for Travis, because he's Travis, are few and far between. 

Unfortunately, Travis is not the only animal who has been looked over. In America, millions of animals roam the streets homeless or spend their days and nights in cages. Most of these animals are “put to sleep” or more realistically, killed because there just isn’t room for them and breeders keep on breeding, preventing the mutts and kittens from making it to a loving home. Every animal deserves a home and a chance at a happy life and for many people that’s obvious. However, how do we convince the other half of the nation, the larger half, that animal cruelty is wrong? Better yet, how do we convince them that animals have a worth and inalienable rights, because they’re creatures- like us.

Sources say Travis the chimp lived a fairly human lifestyle. He enjoyed TV, surfing the Internet, sleeping in his bed and dressing himself. He ate at the table with the rest of the family and enjoyed many things humans enjoy as well. While this may seem cute and maybe fascinating to many Americans, it deep disturbs people like me, animal lovers. A real animal lover loves not because the animal is cute or funny but because the animal deserves to be happy like the rest of us creatures. Travis never wanted to life he had. He's a wild animal and deserves to enjoy the life of a wild chimp. The fact that he lashed out and attacked a family friend only supports this idea. After 15 years of being on camera, no wonder Travis went bananas. He just couldn't take it anymore. 

             Today in my persuasive writing class we discussed PETA and the persuasive videos they show in the hopes of rallying members and preventing animal cruelty. The responses from students only support my theory even further: most students don't care about animal rights. The Catalyst, a Seattle University newsletter, took a poll in last month's edition on which issues were most important to Seattle University students. I was appalled to find out Animal Rights was tied in last place for the least important social issue. The only other issue that fell this low was the issue of student loans. Student loans vs. Animal Rights? Really? I struggle with this because in my mind, the life of an animal is worth much more than money or the ability to borrow money from a bank. But like I said, I'm alone in this battle. 

 What is it going to take for people to care more about the life of an animal? Do we need more graphic images? More terrifying statistics? PETA's videos include some of the most horrific footage I have ever seen but after showing some of the videos, the students in class continue to laugh and joke around. For them, life goes on. Many people don't see animals as being even close to as worthy of value as humans, so they struggle to grant them the natural rights that seem so obvious to me. For the above reasons, I am extremely frustrated with people on this issue, everyday. Why do so many people enjoy the bliss of ignorance and turn a blind eye when they see animals suffer? 

 

GETA: Gabby for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

After watching a few PETA videos on the ethical treatment of mice, chickens, dogs and cats, many people are frustrated and offended; "PETA went too far... where are they getting their sources from? This can't be credible," I heard one girl say. I just shook my head. How are people so ignorant of the world around them? As I watched the ABC or Animal Birth Control video, I started to cry. So I turned it off. I tried watching the McCruelty video and only lasted about 7 seconds, so I attempted to watch the video on mice and rats. I couldn't get more than 10 seconds into that one either. The images of homeless animals around the nation are not offensive, they are realistic. For this same reason, I could not watch Passion of the Christ (which may only be "reality" for us Christians) and to this day, I cannot watch a commercial that portrays poverty stricken children in third world countries. It is so emotionally heart wrenching for me to watch any creature in pain, I physically can't do it. Anyone who second guesses PETA and their motives, is living in the bliss of complete ignorance and I have no respect for them. I am fully aware of my concrete set of values, which includes a strong commitment to animal and human rights. I also know this affects the way I interpret videos from PETA as well as many other animal rights organizations. I understand that. What I don't understand is why no one else in this class feels the way I do about the issue. Why doesn't anyone else care? One man (I hesitate to call him a man) said that because animals and humans are "on different levels" its not fair to compare a woman being raped to a female animal in heat, taken over by another animal (which to me, seems pretty darn close to rape.) I can't even raise my hand in class, because I know I'll start to cry. PETA is not offensive or irrational. They are only using real images, real footage and real animals to make a point: animals should be treated better than they are currently. 

Travis the chimp and our ultimate reality; students don't care about animals

Travis the chimp has been in the spotlight for years. Whether it was in Old Navy or Coca Cola commercials, Travis has been a friendly face on TV for many. What we didn't know was that Travis was going to be getting much more media attention. In the past few weeks many stories have been done on Travis because he attacked a family friend by mauling her face and ripping apart the palms of her hands. What Travis did was wrong and everyone in America feels terrible for the poor woman not many people feel bad for Travis. Most of them say things like, "well of course the chimp did that, he's a wild animal!" or "that's what you get for keeping a chimp for a pet" but the people that feel bad for Travis, because he's Travis, are few and far between. 

What is wrong with our society? Sources say Travis the chimp lived a fairly human lifestyle. He enjoyed TV, surfing the internet, sleeping in his bed and dressing himself. He ate at the table with the rest of the family and enjoyed many things humans enjoy as well. While this may seem cute and maybe fascinating to many Americans, it deep disturbs people like me, animal lovers. A real animal lover loves not because the animal is cute or funny but because they deserve to be happy- like the rest of us creatures. Travis never wanted to life he had. Ya he's a wild animal and deserves to enjoy the life of a chimp. The fact that he lashed out and attacked a family friend only supports this idea. After 15 years of being on camera, no wonder Travis went bananas. He just couldn't take it anymore. 

Today in class, we have been discussing PETA and the persuasive videos they show in the hopes of rallying members and preventing animal cruelty. The responses some students had to these videos only supports my theory even further: most students don't care about animal rights. The Catalyst, a Seattle University newsletter, took a poll in last month's edition on which issues were most important to Seattle University students. I was appalled to find out animal rights was tied in last place for the least important social issue. The only other issue that fell this low was student loans. Student loans vs. animal rights? Really? I struggle with this because in my mind, the life of an animal is worth much more than money- or the ability to borrow money from a bank...but like I said, I'm alone in this battle. 

What is it going to take for people to care more about the life of an animal? More graphic images? PETA's videos include some of the most horrific footage I have ever seen but after showing some of the videos, the students in class continue to laugh and joke around. For them, life goes on; out of sight, out of mind. Maybe having pets will help people respect animal life and happiness? Besides that, I'm out of ideas. It may seem strange but for this same reason, I hesitate to have children of my own. There are millions of children that roam the streets of our world without anyone to care for them. How selfish and cruel would it be for me to have my own children, when so many go uncared for? My problem is, I hold humans and animals at the same "level." Many people don't see animals as being even close to as worthy of value as humans, so they struggle to grant them the natural rights that seem so obvious to me. For the above reasons, I am extremely frustrated with people on this issue, everyday. Why do so many people enjoy the bliss of ignorance and turn a blind eye when they see animals suffer? 

being a responsible mommy

Being a mother is arguably the most important job a woman could ever have. For that reason, I am constantly debating in my mind whether I should be a mom or not. Its too big of a decision to be taken lightly and unfortunately, its a decision thats made everyday without a second thought. There are many ways to be a responsible mother and I believe there are many components to being responsible for a child. Being only financially responsible does not cut it and being only emotionally responsible for that child does that cut it either. There is not a precise recipe but responsible motherhood takes time, money, effort, patience...the list goes on. What we have been discussing in class today is motherhood in the military and the now famous, 14-child Mom. Personally, if a woman wants to have a baby and be in the military, thats her choice to make. Many men make the same choice to be a parent while continuing to serve and for that reason, women should be able to make the same decision. Do I think its the smartest choice? No. But having the freedom to make that choice- is priceless and absolutely necessary. As for the 14-child Mom, I  just shake my head. Of course I don't agree with her lifestyle (thousands in student loans, food stamps and family drama) but as of right now, we cannot prevent women from having children and we can also not prevent them from having a certain number of children. She had the right to make the decision she made. Again, it was not the best choice in my opinion. However, while I may not agree with the way some people choose to live their lives, its not up to me or anyone else to decide that. I know how I will live my life... and really, thats all I need to worry about. 

Letter of Intent

My name is Gabrielle Evans and I am a representative of Seattle Public Transit, a non-profit organization that works to create safer, more easily accesible communities throughout downtown Seattle. We were founded in Seattle in 1875 by two young circus cyclists and have been pushing towards creating a more eco-friendly, healthy and accesible city ever since. We have been funded by The Bill and Melina Gates Foundation as well as the Starbucks Coffee Company in the past. While their contributions were greatly appreciated, the funds that have been donated to us in the past are now running dry. This is why we need fresh foundations to keep our organization a float. We are proposing to create more realistic forms of public transportation in the urban areas of Seattle. By creating more street cars, bike lanes, sidewalks and carpool areas, we will be greatly eliminating the morning traffic as well as the carbon emissions that add to global warming. We need this project to happen, fast. When the construction of the tunnel begins, traffic downtown will be terrible. Seattle will need more realistic options for people not wanting to sit on 1-5 for hours each morning. Our organization is capable of carrying out this idea because we have partnered with Seattle Construction Management who owns half of the urban roadways in Seattle. Because of this dire need, Seattle Public Transit Ogranization is asking for $5,785,3120.67 which will cover the cost of fixing our transit problems. Thank you for taking the time to read this proposal and I will be in contact with you by phone sometime next week. Thanks again.

Gabrielle Evans
Seattle Public Transit Org.

I want to make my community a better place.

I want to make the community I live in a better place by making public transportation more appealing and realisitic. I live in an area where it takes almost two hours for me to get to school by bus. Because this is an unrealistic option for me. I always drive. I would love to be able to take a street car or a street train of some sort to places all over the city. When public transportation is unrealisitic and more of a hassle than a luxury, no one wants to use it.

Travis the Chimp (minor analysis paper)

A few weeks ago, a loveable chimp named Travis was shot dead by policemen after he mauled a woman. Many of us may recognize Travis from Old Navy and Coca Cola commercials; he has been in the spotlight for over 15 years. According to witnesses and officials, Travis the chimp lives a fairly human lifestyle. He can bathe himself, surf the Internet, flick through channels and hang out with the family. It wasn’t until recently that he had started to act sort of strange. His “mother” who has been looking after Travis for the last 15 years, first noticed Travis was acting strange a few days before the attack. When she couldn’t figure out what was wrong, she asked her friend to come over.

            Maybe it was the way she wore her hair that day but Travis went bananas. Travis jumped on the woman and began clawing her face. When Travis would not stop, his owner went inside for a knife. After stabbing him numerous times, Travis finally fled the scene into his bedroom, where his owner thought he would die. When police got to the scene, there was not much left of the woman’s face or hands. Witnesses said it would be hard to determine whether this woman had a face at all. It was a miracle she survived. As the troopers got back into the car, Travis jumped inside it. There was nothing left to do but shoot. The police put an end to the horror as well as the life of Travis.

            There is no denying what Travis did was wrong, but what can one expect from a wild animal? It was never in his best interest to be in clothing and beverage commercials. Chimps don’t belong on TV and they don’t do well in human settings for too long. From a good character and good will standpoint, I’m on Travis’ side. There is no reason that an animal had to die because of this. Furthermore, most citizen journalists have not expressed their sadness for Travis, only the woman that was hurt by him. Why doesn’t anyone else care? Most people agree that Travis is a wild animal and capable of violence (especially because of his size) but it is rare to find anyone who feels bad for Travis, just because. Because of my good character and appreciation of all creatures, this issue really bothers me. Most people don’t care about Travis because they don’t have good will towards animals. I am disappointed in other members of the community because they lack compassion for other creatures.

            Right before I was about to lose all faith in humanity, I came across Newsvine.com, a citizen journalist website local to the Seattle area. Newsvine is a great source for all types of news and the best part is, local members of the community “seed” articles to the website, creating their own source for articles from all over the country. There are numerous themes for the articles from business to odd news; there is something for everyone. After each article there is a place for people to comment and debate, making Newsvine a great place to have a public forum on prominent and also not so popular issues. There are Newsvine regulars who write their own articles and tag their favorites. What I love about these people is that they are all very different and bring something unique to the table.

            I first read the Travis the chimp story on Newsvine and automatically read the comments following the article in order to see what other people were thinking and feeling about this issue. There were two people that commented on the article that had the most persuasive arguments. One blogger said they grew up with numerous chimps and never saw the potential for them to attack. He shared a few stories about his childhood with chimps, hoping to appeal to a larger animal-loving audience. He was using the rhetorical technique of experience to support his claims.

 Another blogger said he had done a lot of research in wild animals and learned that the larger the animal, the greater the amount of violence they can cause. This man was appealing to authority because he had some knowledge on the issue. Both bloggers had credible rhetorical strategies but the wild animal researcher was more appealing to me because my values (as the reader) were more aligned with his. I did not grow up with chimps so using the rhetorical strategy of experience doesn’t work as well for me. By using data, statistics and an authoritative tone in his writing, the second blogger was much more appealing and credible. While both people participated in the forum, neither of them expressed any sadness for Travis, the only victim that had been suffering for years.

 

Seattle School District makes the call- shut em' down.

Dear Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson,

I commend the work you have done and stand behind your decision to close/re-locate the 5 schools you have chosen. While many families will suffer in small ways because of your decision, I have to remain positive and confident that as a fellow member of our community, and an elected official, you made the right choice. I understand that all areas of the country are suffering at the present time. Everyone has witnessed a decrease in funds- so cuts are an unfortunate neccesity.

I hope that you made this choice with the children in mind. While it may be easy for many children to make the transition, it will no doubt be very difficult for the 1,700 children to make the adjustment. It is unfortunate that the children are innocent in this but I hope that the decisions you made will make their futures even brighten than before. Months from now, when things get a little bit better, I hope that the Seattle School District will be able to develop better schools- for the entire Seattle community. A benefit of this transition will be tje integration of races and socio-economic perspectives. Hopefully, the benefits of your decision will continue for years to come.

Gabrielle Evans
Seattle University

It's not something we want to do but we HAVE to.

Barack Obama's Stimulus plan is not something Obama was excited to rally for. He told us that at his first press conference. Unfortunately, he "inhereted" (as he calls it) a faulty economic system at the federal level. He didn't want to start his presidency by calling for 800 billion towards fixing things- but thats the way it has to be. If Obama stood by and did NOTHING (as most people want him to do) he would be getting much more backlash from the American people than he is right now. After doing hours of research on this issue, the unfortunate reality is that this is something we have to do. Also, America... we elected this man to be president. I checked his name on the ballot because I support him as the president, the main man, the decision maker. We are also forgetting that he knows MUCH MORE than us simple citizens. When it comes to making decisions on the economy, who are you going to trust? The man with ALL the answers or... well, anyone else?

This house would build a tunnel

Previous to today's debate, I was against the building of the viaduct. I think. After the debate, I agree with its construction because it created new jobs right away and helps out the infrastructure desperately needed by large transportation vehicles and traveling families. Semi trucks and minivans cannot use the light rail. Despite the ideal of not using cars, there are people that have no choice. Please make it easier for them to get from A to B.

Barack Obama’s Stimulus package: Legislative pork or the change we need? (FINAL MAP)

            President Barack Obama has presented an economic stimulus package worth over 800 billion dollars. After wining a presidential campaign focused on unifying a partisan-divided America, Obama is finding little consensus on anything he has proposed in his first two weeks in office. In order to motivate the American government to pass this bill, Obama has used numerous rhetorical strategies: advisory, audience, situational and stylized. At a time when the entire global economy is facing a crisis, Obama is doing everything he can to persuade Americans to trust him by passing this stimulus plan.

            Many people agree that American is divided based on political party preference. By aligning with certain values, you support one team or another while denying the other half of the country. There are many people who feel they have to choose the lesser of two evil political parties but a large majority ends up picking one side, one set of priorities. In order to win the 2008 presidency, Obama centered his focus on uniting a disappointed country, a people looking for a change. In order to keep up this theme, Obama has taken advice and suggestions from both sides but hasn’t been able to win in the end. It seems as if he is being pulled from both sides, forced to choose. In politics, you can’t please everyone so you can only please half, or so it seems. By being the first African American president, Barack Obama brought change to the White House, but can he keep it going?

            Barack Obama put together an economic stimulus package in hopes of creating new jobs and boosting the economy. Citizens and economists from around the world have been debating the consequences if this bailout is passed and it seems like everyone is torn. In attempts to create consensus across the globe, Obama has been meeting with members from all parties and regions in order to gain a larger perspective. In his article, “The Same old Song,” Bob Herbert of The New York Times claims that republicans are delusional for wanting to increase tax cuts in order to help the economy. On the other hand, a Newsvine columnist by the name of Askari claims that if this bailout is passed, the economy is “doomed to fail.” 

            Bob Herbert makes numerous claims to support his overall argument such as; republicans have completely lost it, why does anyone listen to them? This totally violates the rebuttal principle. By saying that republicans have lost it, it gives them little ground to defend themselves. If Herbert had it his way, he said he would increase the stimulus package to a larger sum. Furthermore, republicans should have no say in the matter, look where they have got us today, he argues. In order to support his claim that republicans have no idea what they are talking about, Herbert quotes many republican office holders who argued that a recession was impossible, before it became a reality. Sure, these quotes may embarrass some republicans but Herbert makes a large overgeneralization when he says that all republicans think and feel this way.

            In addition, Herbert is guilty of the “is/ought” fallacy in his article when he says tax cuts are not a viable solution to our economic crisis because they have never worked in the past when used by republicans. If that’s the way it is, that’s the way it ought to be. Herbert ends his article by asking, “why are we still listening to them [republicans]?” He must assume that simple listening is too much to ask for; republicans should be cut from the forum. However, as a journalist, Herbert should be willing to listen to multiple perspectives. Even our president, Barack Obama claims that he values a well-rounded bipartisan discussion.

            In his article, “Obama Economic Recovery Plan Doomed to Fail” Askari makes several well-supported claims regarding Obama’s recent bailout proposal. Askari believes that Obama’s plan will destroy the value of the dollar, it will not benefit the economy the way Obama claims it will, there is already too much social program spending that needs to be tended to, the Obama bailout plan lacks numbers and logic and lastly, if people took the time to read the actual proposal, they would become aware of these details as well. Askari uses personal experience in Budget balancing for large corporations as support for his claims. He also sites the actual proposal, the Congressional Budget Office and the experience of other countries that have seen economic issues like we are experiencing today. By reasoning through analogy, Askari makes himself out to be very credible.

            There were only a few minor warrants to Askari’s article. Within the article, he calls himself an independent who is not interested in “petty, political game playing.” He has and does assume that Ron Paul’s economic plan was superior because much more research was conducted. Askari criticizes Obama’s plan because it lacks research, numbers and logic; what certain jobs need to be created? What will happen if we give everyone a certain amount of money? On the other hand, Askari assumes that he knows all of the details of Obama’s plan while there might be a few surprises none of us know about.

            Both authors articulate their claims as facts. Herbert expresses his opinions and supports them with pathos, making them seem factual. In contrast, Askari uses raw data, budget spread sheets and personal experience (a combination of ethos, pathos and logos) to support his arguments. Herbert assumes that his audience is primarily democratic and tired of “the same old song.” However, there are many republicans that are just as tired and democrats who don’t agree with him. Askari targeted his article to people who are blindly committed to Obama’s economic plan. He wrote it in such a way that most people have an easy time reading it. Also, he also assumes that they have not taken the time to read the actual proposal. Both authors value journalism but in different ways. Herbert plans on staying wildly loyal (appealing to the essence loci) to the Democratic Party. He values his partisanship above all else, even traditional journalism. Askari seems to value the facts, logic, and the loci of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

            It is easy to be persuaded by both of these articles even though they appeal to different emotions, senses and loci. Herbert’s article pulls me because of the emotional appeal and the partisanship but Askari’s logic and rational thought forces me to think twice. Both articles are well written and cause movement in the mind of the reader. However, the discovery of many fallacies in Herbert’s article causes the reader to re-think the validity of his arguments, no matter how persuasive they are. As for the economic stimulus package, hopefully Obama will participate in more debate. Lets hope he keeps his eyes and ears open, or else we are all doomed to fail.

            In recent news, the economic stimulus package has passed the first step, with no help from the GOP. Not one republican representative voted for the bill and surprisingly, eleven democrats voted against it. Maybe asking for suggestions from the right side was a bad idea? All they are proposing is more of the same: more tax cuts for the wealthy and benefits for homebuyers. While Obama has been toying with the idea, democrats are getting angry. It seems impossible that Obama is going to please both sides in the government but overall, most people are happy with the movements he has made thus far. If it becomes impossible to take advice from both sides of the political spectrum, how are we ever going to unite as a country? If the GOP doesn’t loosen up soon, this could end in a civil war: blue vs. red.

            In the February 10^th 2009 edition of the Seattle Post Intelligencer, a political cartoon pokes fun at “all that pork” in the stimulus package. One large pig with the words “Stimulus Porkage” written on his side puckers up to a small man wearing a democrat t-shirt. The caption at the top reads “lipstuck on a pig.” Another cartoon above this one portrays an elephant in priest’s gear with the words GOP written on its clothing. While the GOP elephant preaches; “Have faith! Tax cuts alone will save us!” the republican caucus dances below him in a frenzy of happiness.  Both of these political cartoons are attempts to stab at the character of the other side. By framing democrats as loving the recovery “porkage” and republicans praising a GOP elephant the cartoonist is committing an act of Ad Homonym. Also, there is hope that one will persuade the reader to support or not support the plan Obama has proposed.

            Currently, the bill is in its final stages. Last night President Obama gave his first press conference in order to clear up any misconceptions about the bill and also to take roughly thirteen questions from major broadcasting centers around the nation. Most of the answers he provided to questions about the stimulus package included the word “catastrophe” and “this is my bottom line.” Last night Obama was warning us about what could happen if we don’t act now. Also, he was making the argument that he wants to do what’s best for the largest number of people. After visiting town halls in Elkhart, Indiana and speaking nationally to over 37 million people (more than the number of people who voted on American Idol during it’s premiere) the Senate finally passed this bill with the help of three new republican votes. They are happy to know that about one-third of the 800 Billion recovery plan will be going to tax cuts.

            The MSNBC.com article titled, “Senate passes $838 billion stimulus bill” focuses on the most current edition of the stimulus bill. Lots of programs and money have been cut out in order to make room for the tax cuts republicans pleaded for. The homebuyer tax credits, possible tax breaks for new car buyers  and school construction will be cut back also. This article, whose author is unknown, is an excellent piece of journalism. There were no obvious fallacies but straight facts about the most current state of this bill. However, because the article comes from MSNBC, which is known for leaning towards the left, the reader has to assume that there is a liberal bias behind the words of this article. That could change how the reader interprets the messages being sent. The final product of the stimulus package seems to be an equal division between what both parties wanted. It includes tax cuts but also “Obama’s signature $500 tax credit for 95 percent of workers.” Maybe bipartisan discussion does work after all.

            During his opening statements, Obama used the loci of person by putting faces and imagery to the numbers of people that have lost their jobs recently. By using the reasoning of associative structures, he told stories about factory workers and military families, melting the hearts of the millions who watched. He also emphasized the loci of quality, explaining to the American people that this is uncharted water for America; this recession is unique so it requires special treatment and a large jolt, not just a little one. An article titled “Paying the Piper” published by the Economist on February 5^th 2009 gives more detail on the cap Obama is placing on corporate pay checks. Starting very soon, executives can make no more than $500,000 dollars a year. This is very generous considering the fact that the President only makes $400,000 in comparison.

The author of this article tells us that this has been attempted in the past. In 1993, President Clinton tried to cap the salary of executives but they found loopholes in the plan and continued to make billions. But this doesn’t mean that it won’t work this time. Many of the authors of these sources are pessimistic and complaining about the current times. Almost all of the options for going forward are being shot down because of the is/ought fallacy in reasoning and Obama’s classic appeal to emotion. Some of these options have not worked in the past, why will they work now? or “Obama is just using another scare tactic to get us to believe him.” While it is understandable to be cautious, many of the fallacies these authors commit are not logically sound.

            In conclusion, all the sources that have been rallying around the stimulus package have been answering to the rhetorical style of advisory, audience, situational and stylized. Every single one of the authors that has been examined has provided some sort of advice to the reader whether it’s through words or smaller fallacies. These authors also know their audience and the dire times we are facing. They know exactly what the American people need to hear right now and they use their own unique styles to persuade them to think one way or the other about this stimulus plan. Because the media is so prevalent in our culture, is it extremely critical to be able to analyze these sources so that the most credible information can be available to the reader.

it's way more fun to get a good education, trust me

I lived the big school, Pac-10 lifestyle: drinking every night, days spent at the pool instead of class, spending hundreds of dollars on grey goose and Gabana and yeah it was fun, for a little while. I went to Arizona State University my freshman year and made a ton of incredible memories but one day it dawned on me: do I really want to spend 30,000$ a year on a big party? No. I would rather put that money towards a good education and the possibility of a good job. So I transfered to Seattle University my sophomore year and haven't looked back. Seattle U may not be the keg-stand capitol of college world but I have learned so much and networked in so many ways. My future is concrete and Im proud of the student I have become. Seattle University is a tiny, funky and bold school in the middle of a big beautiful city. Close by are incredible neighborhoods and beautiful places in nature. I absolutely love it here. Yes, I do miss the days of mexican food and beer but I would do it all over again, to be apart of Seattle University. 

Bitter Basketball better lead to Sweet Fruits

The root of a Seattle University education, or any jesuit education for that matter has been very bitter lately. Rising tuition costs, greater enforcement of parking violations, a downsize in class numbers and sizes, rising food costs and financial aid deductions have all made the 2008 fiscal year a difficult one for scholars at Seattle University. While many students are nervous about how to pay their tuition, the sports fans at Seattle U saw a glimpse of excitement. This past year, Seattle University has moved into the D-1 position, allowing us to compete more heavily with greater teams. Even though this is exciting for the sports fans, us regular college-goers are a little disappointed. Why do we have to pay for the move to D-1? Is it fair to raise tuition for this to be possible, especially during an economic recession? The root of education (and all the money it requires) is bitter but sweet are its fruits, according to Socrates. Hopefully the money we have put towards this bitter basketball game will result in an abundance of sweet fruits and victories, it better! We have sure been paying for it. 

related articles to my MAP...

www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348876

partisan civil war

President Barack Obama has presented an economic stimulus package worth over 800 billion dollars. After wining a presidential campaign focused on unifying a partisan-divided America, Obama is finding little consensus on anything he has proposed in his first two weeks in office. In order to motivate the American government to pass this bill, Obama has used numerous rhetorical strategies; advisory, audience, situational and stylized. At a time when the entire global economy is facing a crisis, Obama is doing everything he can to persuade Americans to trust him by passing this stimulus plan.

            Many people agree that American is divided based on political party preference. By aligning with certain values, you support one team or another while denying the other half of the country. There are many people who feel they have to choose the lesser of two evil political parties but a large majority ends up picking one side, one set of priorities. In order to win the 2008 presidency, Obama centered his focus on uniting a disappointed country, a people looking for a change. In order to keep up this theme, Obama has taken advice and suggestions from both sides but hasn’t been able to win in the end. It seems as if he is being pulled from both sides, forced to choose. In politics, you can’t please everyone so you can only please half, or so it seems. By being the first African American president, Barack Obama brought change to the White House, but can he keep it going?

            Barack Obama put together an economic stimulus package in hopes of creating new jobs and boosting the economy. Citizens and economists from around the world have been debating the consequences if this bailout is passed and it seems like everyone is torn. In attempts to create consensus across the globe, Obama has been meeting with members from all parties and regions in order to gain a larger perspective. In his article, “The Same old Song,” Bob Herbert of The New York Times claims that republicans are delusional for wanting to increase tax cuts in order to help the economy. On the other hand, a Newsvine columnist by the name of Askari claims that if this bailout is passed, the economy is “doomed to fail.” 

            Bob Herbert makes numerous claims to support his overall argument such as; republicans have completely lost it, why does anyone listen to them? If Herbert had it his way, he said he would increase the stimulus package to a larger sum. Furthermore, republicans should have no say in the matter, look where they have got us today, he argues. In order to support his claim that republicans have no idea what they are talking about, Herbert quotes many republican office holders who argued that a recession was impossible, before it became a reality. Sure, these quotes may embarrass some republicans but Herbert makes a large overgeneralization when he says that all republicans think and feel this way.

            In addition, Herbert is guilty of the “is/ought” fallacy in his article when he says tax cuts are not a viable solution to our economic crisis because they have never worked in the past when used by republicans. If that’s the way it is, that’s the way it ought to be. Herbert ends his article by asking, “why are we still listening to them [republicans]?” He must assume that simple listening is too much to ask for; republicans should be cut from the forum. However, as a journalist, Herbert should be willing to listen to multiple perspectives. Even our president, Barack Obama values a well-rounded bipartisan discussion.

            In his article, “Obama Economic Recovery Plan Doomed to Fail” Askari makes several well-supported claims regarding Obama’s recent bailout proposal. Askari believes that Obama’s plan will destroy the value of the dollar, it will not benefit the economy the way Obama claims it will, there is already too much social program spending that needs to be tended to, the Obama bailout plan lacks numbers and logic and lastly, if people took the time to read the actual proposal, they would become aware of these details as well. Askari uses personal experience in Budget balancing for large corporations as support for his claims. He also sites the actual proposal, the Congressional Budget Office and the experience of other countries that have seen economic issues like we are experiencing today.

            There were only a few minor warrants to Askari’s article. Within the article, he calls himself an independent who is not interested in “petty, political game playing.” He has and does assume that Ron Paul’s economic plan was superior because much more research was conducted. Askari criticizes Obama’s plan because it lacks research, numbers and logic; what certain jobs need to be created? What will happen if we give everyone a certain amount of money? On the other hand, Askari assumes that he knows all of the details of Obama’s plan while there might be a few surprises none of us know about.

            Both authors articulate their claims as facts. Herbert expresses his opinions and supports them with pathos, making them seem factual. In contrast, Askari uses raw data, budget spread sheets and personal experience (a combination of ethos, pathos and logos) to support his arguments. Herbert assumes that his audience is primarily democratic and tired of “the same old song.” However, there are many republicans that are just as tired and democrats who don’t agree with him. Askari targeted his article to people who are blindly committed to Obama’s economic plan. He wrote it in such a way that most people have an easy time reading it. Also, he also assumes that they have not taken the time to read the actual proposal. Both authors value journalism but in different ways. Herbert plans on staying wildly loyal (appealing to the essence loci) to the Democratic Party. He values his partisanship above all else, even traditional journalism. Askari seems to value the facts, logic, and the loci of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

            It is easy to be persuaded by both of these articles even though they appeal to different emotions, senses and loci. Herbert’s article pulls me because of the emotional appeal and the partisanship but Askari’s logic and rational thought forces me to think twice. Both articles are well written and cause movement in the mind of the reader. However, the discovery of many fallacies in Herbert’s article causes the reader to re-think the validity of his arguments, no matter how persuasive they are. As for the economic stimulus package, hopefully Obama will participate in more debate. Lets hope he keeps his eyes and ears open, or else we are all doomed to fail.

            In recent news, the economic stimulus package has passed the first step, with no help from the GOP. Not one republican representative voted for the bill and surprisingly, eleven democrats voted against it. Maybe asking for suggestions from the right side was a bad idea? All they are proposing is more of the same: more tax cuts for the wealthy and benefits for homebuyers. While Obama has been toying with the idea, democrats are getting angry. It seems impossible that Obama is going to please both sides in the government but overall, most people are happy with the movements he has made thus far. If it becomes impossible to take advice from both sides of the political spectrum, how are we ever going to unite as a country? If the GOP doesn’t loosen up soon, this could end in a civil war: blue vs. red.