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.