BLOG #7

            Yes, I agree with the argument made of having more e-books available throughout Arizona State University. With all the new technologies growing immensely in the United States. the students here at ASU are constantly on their phones, computers, Ipads, and Kindles. This being said, why have the students lug around hard copy books when they can be at the touch of their fingers 24/7 instead? The argument made is very strong but there is other evidence and points that can be made to strengthen the essay such as, direct quotes from students, polls from the staff who support the proposal. These points and quotes would strengthen this argument because the audience will see how the student body, as well as the staff, feel about the idea of e-books being available. The audience for this essay is President Crow and any other staff member involved in the decision to make books available online. Their beliefs are ones against the idea of electronic books and their responsibilities are to make ASU the most innovative Universities possible. They so this by exercising, executing, and reading about problems the students and staff present, then coming up with solutions to those problems.  

            In this proposal the author does appeal the audiences emotions by mentioning the changes e-books will make will be “Very helpful for students in need”. Seeing as though helping and making Arizona State University beneficial to students is the staff’s main goal this should appeal to their emotion in that sense. The author also mentioned with this change ASU “will be noticed” and “will be at the forefront of technology”. Not only do the staff here at ASU need to please the students but they also need to please incoming students and their competition (other top Universities in the U.S.). Having that title would draw new students in and blow away the competition. The author never really mentions his credibility though. I can only assume that the author is a student at ASU from the contents of the proposal. I would give the author a 5 out of 10 for his use of Ethos throughout the proposal.

Even though the author’s use of Ethos was not present, his use of Logos was appropriate. The writer used quotes from credible research companies, such as ABI Research, The College Board, and Arizona Christian University that backed up his evidence and supported the claims. The writer can definitely add evidence from ASU itself. Using quotes, stats, polls, and other data filled evidence from the students and staff adding a more personal approach to this proposal. Having these statistics from students who agree with the proposal for more online books will persuade the audience to see the proposal from an inside view, instead of just one students opinion.

            All in all I feel like this is a sufficient model for a proposal assignment. The author had many credible sources to back up his points. Most importantly the essay was well written and will make sense to the audience.

Blog #6

     If technology does take over the majority of the jobs in America there will be a serious problem of unemployment that will sweep the nation. In order for the country to prevent this problem the solution seems easy, stop allowing machines to take over the work place. But, assuming that option is not on the table the country can solve this unemployment problem in other ways as well without creating worse problems. For example, stop shipping out jobs over seas. All of the jobs already over seas could be taken over by citizens without jobs now in the U.S. Honestly, I believe that if anyone knew the answer to this question being asked there would not be even half as many unemployed people out there In the United States today. There are only ideas in the political world that are circulating trying to fix this problem. Not only are there so many unemployed people but the political figures who are trying to solve the problem are all hot-headed and will not take any other ideas into consideration but their own. If we want to solve this problem today, or in this scenario, we all need to put our heads together and think as one in order to find a solution. It does not matter whether you are blue at heart or red, if every political opinion was tossed aside and this situation was reevaluated as a group the government would get a lot more accomplished that will be beneficial to this country.

Blog #5

     If technological advances start to really increase there will be several other jobs that will no longer need to be fulfilled by humans! Teacher positions, for example, will no longer be necessary. There are an abundance of online classes that are offered in high schools and colleges all over the United States already so essentially the students teach themselves with all the lessons and guidance online without any face-to-face interaction. Technology can easily take over these teaching positions. Other jobs that will no longer be in demand for human labor are many in the service industry. Machines could replace baristas, servers, and even chefs. Espresso can be a touch of a button away and food can be prepared all by technology without any human help what so ever. Restaurants will be filled with machines that take your order and robots that serve you the food. There are several problems that can and will arise from these technological advances that will be detrimental to our country’s economy. Many citizens around the U.S. will be laid off by their jobs and be replaced by machinery, therefore being forced into unemployment. The rise in unemployment will send out country into another depression because money will no longer be circulating like it once used to. This rise in unemployment will cause the government to support these families by providing food stamps and other assistance.

Wise Rhetorical Strategies

Upon Re-reading Obamas speech about Faith and Politics there are several wise and unwise rhetorical strategies used throughout.

The Rogerian Argument style is the first wise strategy used in Obama’s speech. He creatively crafted his opening words in a way that is very non-threatening. Then proceeds to congratulate the audience for their hard work in the political world before addressing the problem at hand. This strategy was used simply to start off on a win/win mind set with the audience; he wasn’t there to blame anyone.

            Pathos, Ethos and Logos rhetorical strategies were used in abundance throughout his speech. Obama appealed to the audience’s emotions (Pathos. For example, “Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness” (Obama 2). This statement used powerful words that had an emotional impact on the reader/listener.

Obama referred to the Ethos style of persuasion frequently during his speech and for a good reason. His blue suit was masking Obamas true character and credibility towards the red sea of audience members he was addressing. Several times he mentioned working with the church or someone affiliated with the church. “I was working with the churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me” (Obama 2). “Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jake . . . ” (Obama 4).  This strategy gave the audience the O.K. to trust Obama.

Along with the Pathos and Ethos style of rhetoric, Obama used the Logos approach. He gave several facts and statistics backing up his claims. For example, “90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution” (Obama 2). He chose these statistics to be paired with the claim stating Americans are religious people, this provided support for the reader.

Faith and Politics Summary

Wednesday, June 28 2006. Senator Barack Obama stands in front of an audience of firm Jesus Christ believers who want religion to be tied with politics. His goal is to address the use of religion in politics and ways our Country can overcome the conflicts arisen from this common debate. Senator Obama leads his speech by giving an example of faith in politics in action. He relays a statement said by Alan Keyes, one of his opponents in the past election, directed at the then-Senator Obama. Alan Keyes stated,  “Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama, because Obama is a Christian but supports the destruction of innocent life.” Obama goes on to speak about how this statement, and many others alike for thirty years, intertwine religion and politics negatively. This negativity is caused by a “gap” between party relationships other then the simple divide of red and blue. This gap is whether you attend church weekly or not.

As stated by Obama, Conservatives misuse this gap by suggesting that Democrats do not respect their values and do not like the church. Usually the Democratic Party avoids this type of statement because of the ethics that come into play, or they completely dismiss religion in politics all together. Obama explains that these strategies of avoidance are essentially pointless and that it is time to settle faith with the modern mixed democracy. He lists three ways Democrats can do to reconcile this faith; Understand that Americans are religious people because religious tendencies are an extreme hunger that search to fill a void, Democrats need to speak up about religious topics because narrow-minded others prevent the liberals from addressing the issues correctly, and the Bible has helpful guidance that liberals can use to rid of the biases they have of religious people and hopefully notice the overlapping morals both secular and nonsecular people share.

Obama proceeds to mention this country needs both the blue and red sides to be present when solving the religion and politics divide. He lists three ways Conservatives can prevent this debate; understand the role of the separation of the church and state and how this is no longer just a Christian nation, Know that there needs to be common laws or basic reason behind every argument, and a balance between faith and democracy is crucial. This balance should guide those who are on the boundaries between church and state.

Wrapping up his speech, Obama states that people are sick of seeing faith used as an aid to attack and used as a dividing point. Obama hopes we all can live with one another in a way that solves our conflicts between religious and no-religious beliefs with good intentions.