I think I want to focus my paper on looking at Mitt Romney's campaign theme "War on Religion." I'll probably use the campaign add that I've been looking at for this class and look into enthymemes, pathos, logos, ethos (if it's there) and paradigms. Then I might compare that with the Obama campaign flip side "War on Women" and do a similar rhetorical analysis of either a speech or video from Obama/supporters...
...I'm also interested in idea we discussed in class where during a speech the speaker will imply - look, this is the kind of person he/she is - and then either say or imply that the speaker is no such person...
Most political rhetoric includes this kind of statement and campaign videos most definitely use this tactic all the time so I'll point those out as well if I have time and space
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Ok, so I think the main enthymeme here is that Obama has forced the catholic institution to go against their values - so he's therefore a threat to all religious institutions. The audience hears - Obamas health care plan declared war on religion. They fill in the blanks -- Insurance companies are required to cover contraceptives to employees -- including those of private religious institutions (like religious universities) -- these actions imply that Obama wants to declare war on the catholic religion -- if he declares war on the catholics he is likely to declare war on all religious institutions.
Here are additional notes from the reading that I think the film makers use to aid in this suggestion
- (Page 120) they've attempted to put the audience into a state of anger and fear towards Obama and show that he is responsible for the things that are causing the anger and fear (ie: declaring war on religion) - and that Obama is the type of person that the audience should direct their anger and fear towards (because he looks scary and angry. Also he's declaring war on religion)
- (Page 130) The speaker (in this case the narrator speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney) should make the audience realize something or someone they may not have feared and make them realize that they are likely to suffer from this person ("When religious freedom is threatened - who do you want on your side?"). And the audience is supposed to think (Oh, my religious freedom is being threatened?!? Oh no! Better get Mitt Romney on my side to protect me!)
- (Page 174) Topic 4 - for the more and the less (If the lesser thing is true so is the greater) -- I think the enthymeme here is that Obama has declared war on the Catholics (the lesser) so he is therefore going to declare war on all religion (the greater). Also the health care requirements are true (the lesser) so is the declaration of war (the greater) true.
Here are additional notes from the reading that I think the film makers use to aid in this suggestion
- (Page 120) they've attempted to put the audience into a state of anger and fear towards Obama and show that he is responsible for the things that are causing the anger and fear (ie: declaring war on religion) - and that Obama is the type of person that the audience should direct their anger and fear towards (because he looks scary and angry. Also he's declaring war on religion)
- (Page 130) The speaker (in this case the narrator speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney) should make the audience realize something or someone they may not have feared and make them realize that they are likely to suffer from this person ("When religious freedom is threatened - who do you want on your side?"). And the audience is supposed to think (Oh, my religious freedom is being threatened?!? Oh no! Better get Mitt Romney on my side to protect me!)
- (Page 174) Topic 4 - for the more and the less (If the lesser thing is true so is the greater) -- I think the enthymeme here is that Obama has declared war on the Catholics (the lesser) so he is therefore going to declare war on all religion (the greater). Also the health care requirements are true (the lesser) so is the declaration of war (the greater) true.
Monday, September 17, 2012
working through the Romney video
Here's the link to the video again...
http://bcove.me/mkhyv931
So I did a little research this weekend because I didn't know who Lech Walesh was. So for anyone else who doesn't know...he is the former president of Poland. He was a human rights activist in the 70's and helped end communist rule in Poland. In 1979 Pope John Paul II visited his home country of Poland and spoke to the people, saying "Be not afraid." Later, Walesh said that the Pope played a major role in the fall of the Berlin wall and the end to communist rule.
So I've broken the video up a bit...
In the opening scene a man asks..."Who shares your values?" - so obviously that's rhetorical and the viewer is supposed to say, "Mitt Romney! Duh!"
I also thought the words were chosen carefully. Although this video is obviously aimed at the catholic audience, it doesn't start out by asking who shares your religious values. Since Mitt Romney isn't catholic he doesn't necessarily share catholic religious values, but the viewer is supposed to stick the word religious in there themselves, making this question an enthymeme.
The next scene shows a not-so-flattering image of Obama in black and white with somewhat erie music. The colors, music, and emotion of the video segment all play into Pathos, aiming to induce fear and anger in the audience. Obama stands at a Podium, pointing his finger and frowning. This may be a stretch, but I thought he resembled a dictator a little bit, which may have been the aim of the people responsible for the film. I think it's possible they are drawing ties to the communist regime in Poland by using this image.
Here they say that Obama has used his health care plan to declare war on religion. So I researched the health care plan - I really don't pay much attention to politics or the news very much - I find it pretty depressing and prefer to spend my time enjoying life :) - but I researched a bit to better understand the accusation. So I'll share what I learned - again, in case there are other people like me in this class -
Obama's new health care plan requires insurance companies to cover contraceptives without a copay. In one article I read it said that churches, synagogues, and mosques are exempt from this requirement as well as church affiliated employers. Instead, women working for these companies would get contraceptive coverage directly from insurance companies at no extra cost to the company (I think I read that correctly.)
So the line, "war on religion" - here's my take - requiring insurance companies to provide contraceptive insurance disagrees with catholic values - the enthymeme here is that an action that disagrees with catholic views is a declaration of war against all religion. So maybe the film makers here are trying to reach a larger population that just catholic viewers...
Then the deep voiced gentlement adds, "forcing religious institutions to go against their faith." - Again, he doesn't say Catholic institutions, but religious institutions, willing the audience to believe that all religious institutions are under attack from the Obama administration. Also - again, maybe a bit of a stretch - the word "forcing" ties to dictators and situations of war - going back to the communist regime in Poland.
Then, "Mitt Romney believes that's wrong."
So the color, music, and emotion (Pathos) change, attempting to induce positive feelings in the audience when the video switches over to Mitt Romney's defense of religion. I think the word believe was chosen with religious viewers in mind.
And here's a question...does Mitt Romney believe that the contraceptive coverage is wrong AND that declaring war on religion is wrong? OR just declaring war on religion...? I think the audience is supposed to believe both...
Then the video goes to a speech Romney is giving where he talks about the speech John Paul gave in 1979 where he said words that would "bring down an empire."
So we're supposed to make the connection between the evil communist empire and the evil Obama empire...
Then there's a photo of Lech Walesa and the Pope, shaking hands. Then there's a video of Romney and Walesa shaking hands. So Romney is like the Pope and he's going to take down the evil Obama empire by protecting the religious institutions and requiring employees to pay for their own contraception...therefore restoring peace to the country.
When your religious freedom is threatened (when you have to be ok with insurance companies covering contraceptives at no extra cost to you) - you want Mitt Romney at your side...
That's all I've got so far...what do y'all think?
http://bcove.me/mkhyv931
So I did a little research this weekend because I didn't know who Lech Walesh was. So for anyone else who doesn't know...he is the former president of Poland. He was a human rights activist in the 70's and helped end communist rule in Poland. In 1979 Pope John Paul II visited his home country of Poland and spoke to the people, saying "Be not afraid." Later, Walesh said that the Pope played a major role in the fall of the Berlin wall and the end to communist rule.
So I've broken the video up a bit...
In the opening scene a man asks..."Who shares your values?" - so obviously that's rhetorical and the viewer is supposed to say, "Mitt Romney! Duh!"
I also thought the words were chosen carefully. Although this video is obviously aimed at the catholic audience, it doesn't start out by asking who shares your religious values. Since Mitt Romney isn't catholic he doesn't necessarily share catholic religious values, but the viewer is supposed to stick the word religious in there themselves, making this question an enthymeme.
The next scene shows a not-so-flattering image of Obama in black and white with somewhat erie music. The colors, music, and emotion of the video segment all play into Pathos, aiming to induce fear and anger in the audience. Obama stands at a Podium, pointing his finger and frowning. This may be a stretch, but I thought he resembled a dictator a little bit, which may have been the aim of the people responsible for the film. I think it's possible they are drawing ties to the communist regime in Poland by using this image.
Here they say that Obama has used his health care plan to declare war on religion. So I researched the health care plan - I really don't pay much attention to politics or the news very much - I find it pretty depressing and prefer to spend my time enjoying life :) - but I researched a bit to better understand the accusation. So I'll share what I learned - again, in case there are other people like me in this class -
Obama's new health care plan requires insurance companies to cover contraceptives without a copay. In one article I read it said that churches, synagogues, and mosques are exempt from this requirement as well as church affiliated employers. Instead, women working for these companies would get contraceptive coverage directly from insurance companies at no extra cost to the company (I think I read that correctly.)
So the line, "war on religion" - here's my take - requiring insurance companies to provide contraceptive insurance disagrees with catholic values - the enthymeme here is that an action that disagrees with catholic views is a declaration of war against all religion. So maybe the film makers here are trying to reach a larger population that just catholic viewers...
Then the deep voiced gentlement adds, "forcing religious institutions to go against their faith." - Again, he doesn't say Catholic institutions, but religious institutions, willing the audience to believe that all religious institutions are under attack from the Obama administration. Also - again, maybe a bit of a stretch - the word "forcing" ties to dictators and situations of war - going back to the communist regime in Poland.
Then, "Mitt Romney believes that's wrong."
So the color, music, and emotion (Pathos) change, attempting to induce positive feelings in the audience when the video switches over to Mitt Romney's defense of religion. I think the word believe was chosen with religious viewers in mind.
And here's a question...does Mitt Romney believe that the contraceptive coverage is wrong AND that declaring war on religion is wrong? OR just declaring war on religion...? I think the audience is supposed to believe both...
Then the video goes to a speech Romney is giving where he talks about the speech John Paul gave in 1979 where he said words that would "bring down an empire."
So we're supposed to make the connection between the evil communist empire and the evil Obama empire...
Then there's a photo of Lech Walesa and the Pope, shaking hands. Then there's a video of Romney and Walesa shaking hands. So Romney is like the Pope and he's going to take down the evil Obama empire by protecting the religious institutions and requiring employees to pay for their own contraception...therefore restoring peace to the country.
When your religious freedom is threatened (when you have to be ok with insurance companies covering contraceptives at no extra cost to you) - you want Mitt Romney at your side...
That's all I've got so far...what do y'all think?
Friday, September 7, 2012
campaign video
I'm being completely honest when I say that this is the first campaign video I have watched so far. I really have fallen out of politics recently. Still, I found the first line in this video interesting. Who shares your values? Well, from what I've heard about Mit Romney, I don't think we share the same values...but I know he's aiming for a video that speaks to as many votors as possible. To people who are following politics, let me know what you think about this video...personally, I get the sense that Obama isn't threatening religious freedom, but since I don't follow politics I don't have much to back that statement on...
http://bcove.me/mkhyv931
http://bcove.me/mkhyv931
hmmmm
Wow...this was a long and drawn out argument! I think Socrates did to Gorgias, Callicles, and Polus what he did to me. Sent my head realing in circles! I found myself much like Callicles thinking that Socrates' parallels couldn't be answered with a simple yes or no, but I felt a lot like Socrates was saying, "Let me ask you these questions" aka "Let me argue in my own way (the way in which I know I will win) and if you can refute me then, please, do so! But I'm going to ask yes or no questions all the time..." Many of his questions could have answers just as long and drawn out as his arguments. He made his points by using very simple examples and drawing parallels, but I just don't think life is that simple. Is life so simple that you should compare politicians to shoe makers? Not to say that one is better or more great than the other...but are they similar enough to make these arguments? I'm lost in a dizzy... :)
Sunday, September 2, 2012
sup
What's up fellow students?
I like Carson's idea too! I like getting to know a little bit about everyone. So here's my delio. My name is Madeline but I usually go by Maddie. I grew up in Durham, NH where both my parents taught and still teach at the University of New Hampshire. Although I would have been wise to attend that college and receive 1/2 off instate tuition I had more of an adventurous idea in mind and decided to brave the wild wilderness of Montana! That was 4 1/2 years ago and I'm still here. I went from undeclared to liberal studies to spending two years on Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems (while also gaining residency, which included a semester just riding Bridger Bowl!). I left the sustainability program and landed back in Liberal Studies Quaternity, where I plan on finishing out this year and finally receiving my degree. I have always enjoyed writing essays for college, especially instead of taking exams, so I tried to take a few writing classes this semester. I want to improve my writing and figure out if there is any genre of writing in particular that I enjoy...we shall see...anyway I'm looking forward to many interesting conversations and learning from everybody.
I like Carson's idea too! I like getting to know a little bit about everyone. So here's my delio. My name is Madeline but I usually go by Maddie. I grew up in Durham, NH where both my parents taught and still teach at the University of New Hampshire. Although I would have been wise to attend that college and receive 1/2 off instate tuition I had more of an adventurous idea in mind and decided to brave the wild wilderness of Montana! That was 4 1/2 years ago and I'm still here. I went from undeclared to liberal studies to spending two years on Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems (while also gaining residency, which included a semester just riding Bridger Bowl!). I left the sustainability program and landed back in Liberal Studies Quaternity, where I plan on finishing out this year and finally receiving my degree. I have always enjoyed writing essays for college, especially instead of taking exams, so I tried to take a few writing classes this semester. I want to improve my writing and figure out if there is any genre of writing in particular that I enjoy...we shall see...anyway I'm looking forward to many interesting conversations and learning from everybody.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)