a little narrative

President Barack Obama has proposed an economic stimulus package of about 800 billion dollars in hopes of boosting the current state of the economy. Many republicans (none of which voted for this to be passed) would have chosen a different road, tax cuts for the top 3% of the wealthy. The republican suggestion plays a role in the larger narrative of the American Dream. If we give the wealthy tax cuts, they will buy more homes and luxuries items which boots the economy and contributes to their capitalist lifestyle. However, Democrats have been following a different set of values. Tax cuts to the wealthy does not provide the most good for the largest number of people. It would be better if they tried a new plan, one that hasn't gotten us in the current recession we are in. A new plan will motivate people and large companies because new jobs will be created and more money will be pushed into the economy. Obama has been vigorously trying to get support. He claims that there is not a moment to spare. We need to get the ball rolling. With over 505,000 American jobs lost last month alone, Obama feels the pressure and the need for an economic hero at this point. We are all looking to him to make the change he promised. Hopefully we can put our partisanship aside in order to allow this to happen.

That's so gay: So not cool

The Ad council has recently been pushing the "Think B4 you speak" campaign which educates teens and adults on verbal harassment and poor verbal behaviors. The cool phrase, "That's so gay" which means "That's so stupid, bad or annoying" for anyone under 25, is actually really harmful. Coming from a heterosexual perspective, I never thought about this before. I have homosexual friends who say "that's so gay" all time, so I figured it was fine to say. However, using gay as a synonym for bad is a terrible thing to do and I feel ashamed, thanks to the Ad council. In order to push this campaign they have created numerous TV commercials with a "little star power." Hillary Duff and other celebrities have used their fame in good ways. Hillary Duff busts two young girls who are shopping, one calls her shirt "gay" to mean it doesn't look right. When Duff criticizes their word choice, the girls are shocked and embarrassed. This image is pretty realistic (besides Hillary Duff shopping at the same store I do.) There have been times I call something "gay" without knowing the people around me. Even if Hillary Duff isn't there, who else am I offending? At the end of every commercial, the celebrity says "knock it off" in a harsh tone. To me, that is the most effective part of the ad because it causes the audience to feel ashamed and embarrassed. Having a celebrity tell me to "knock it off" causes me to question my ethics. Who am I hurting when I say "That's so gay?" Sadly, I never meant to hurt anyone but instead just went with the crowd. From now on, I'll definitely think B4 I speak. 

Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan: the change we need?

Barack Obama has put together an $877 billion 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. 

Grimy Grimes needs a lesson: Women 101

Jack Grimes really is a grimy guy. Was he 12 when he wrote this article, "Hook-Up Culture"? Grimes uses a number of different claims to support his primary claim, his argument, "The hook-up culture is simply an environment that expects casual sexual encounters that do not necessarily lead to anything further." Grimes speaks from a young male's college-life perspective about sex, dating and women. What is obvious, is that he hasn't done his homework. Grimes does not once define what "hooking up" is? Which base does one have to cover in order for it to count? Grimes seems to say that one must go all the way to take part in this cultural activity. This makes me question his authority because he is obviously not an expert in this field. He also appeals to the "common opinion." As a matter of fact, not everyone seeks to hook-up with different people every weekend. Sometimes hook-ups happen randomly, and not to everyone. Grimes also seems to say that for men, hooking-up is a privilege, it is incredible that anyone would allow you into their own world for a while. However, for women, hooking-up is not as empowering and admirable, "the boys make politely clap and publicly congratulate the women for liberating their sexuality and owning their miniskirt (stereotyping) and so on, but privately they are having a good laugh and passing the word on who is the easy lay." I find this to be completely false. I have many beautiful, sexual friends and we always have a good laugh behind the guy's back. Its not about our "hopes of a relationship getting tossed in the trash" like Grimes assumes, its mostly the other way around. Grimes also claims that dating is dead and maybe someday we could bring it back. That's not true either. I'm not sure how they do it at Tufts but a real man will take the girl on a date. An inexperienced college boy simply "hooks-up." 

Another record is broken, Obama gets to keep Blackberry!

Letter to the Editor of the Seattle Times:

            Your recent article, titled “Obama’s personal win: Keeping the Blackberry” written by Lisa Tolin, is interesting for two reasons. At first glance, one would not categorize this article as very newsworthy. It’s an article primarily about the technology that Obama is allowed to keep that past presidents have not been able to like a personal e-mail address and cell phone number. There are also a few other interesting and silly things thrown in there: the scavenger hunt the Obama girls had that ended with finding the Jonas Brothers, humor about the new puppy and the worry that Michelle Obama faces everyday, will the Obama’s lose their family routines? While these things may seem silly and not deserving of a place in the Seattle Times, they are humanizing and admirable traits of the First Family. These small glimpses give Americans hope and joy. Also, it is incredible that Obama will be able to keep his Blackberry because no other president has been able to do so. He had to meet with numerous lawyers, secret service agents and members of congress in order to make this happen. While Barack will keep his private line, only a few close members of the family will be able to reach him through it. It’s a matter of encomium, everyone praises the Obama family and the feats they have overcome to be such an admirable First Family. Because of this, I love that Tolin wrote this article. It contributes to the sense of Hope I already feel. Barack Obama is breaking records left and right, which puts smiles on everyone’s faces. 

Visual pleasure, a good thing?

1. Virginia Postrel makes several claims in her article "The Aesthetic Imperative: "To succeed, hard-nosed engineers, real estate developers and MBAs must take aesthetic communication...seriously," "The issue is not what style is used but rather that style is used...even in areas where function stands alone," "Sensory appeals are everywhere...they are intensifying." Besides these three claims, smaller themes emerge throughout her writing: Consumers first want function but also demand their products to look good, aesthetics delights us and pleases us because we are sensory beings and finally, aesthetics is basically why consumers buy products.

2. Postrel uses testimonies from experts involved in Aesthetic research, peers that buy apple products because of their looks and she also cites biologists and psychologists to support her claims. By using numerous examples, her claims are reinforced and supported well. Its easy to believe her if everyone else does. 

3. In order to unite her claims and data, Postrel uses many different types of warrants that reasonably authorize data-claim movements. Postrel assumes that aesthetic pleasure is a good thing because companies can produce it and consumers ultimately seek it. In order to bridge these two ideas together, Postrel uses the substantive warrant: if we make pretty products then people will buy them. Postrel also uses ethos in her examples. Everyone loves Starbucks and Apple products- which are both very pretty. This warrant makes the audience feel good because many people participate in these products everyday. She makes it seem like buying products for their looks is a good thing and we should be encouraged to do so. This leads us into the pathos warrant. Postrel makes the reader think that if they buy pretty products they will feel good. Since we do buy good-looking products, we should be proud of ourselves for indulging in our natural "sensory" cravings. I'm so grateful for my beautiful Mac! 

4. At some level, Aesthetics makes us feel good. Lighting a purple candle in my blue bathroom gives me pleasure and happiness. Those things may not serve a practical function to others, but their function of gratification is important to me. Aesthetics also serves a class purpose. It may be discriminatory in its own way but aesthetics provides a distinction between classes, seasons in fashion, styles, cultures, years, lifestyles; aesthetics mark time in history and stages in life. Function and practicality come first but aesthetics make it your own.