GT Group 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/opinion/31brooks.html

"Bush, Cheney nominated for re-election"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/education/18record.html?ex=1094011200&en=581d30c6955f9e1b&ei=5070&hp

Christopher Iogha
Tryon
English 1101 F5
30 August, 2004

Blog Entry #2 Bernadette Malon "NYC errs in playing nice with protestors"

Let me start off by saying that I think this article is totally rediculous and should be discarded as soon as possible. The level of sarcasm and unrealism is outrageous. First of all, Malon assumes everything. None of her predictions are backed up at all by any sort of examples or previous incidents. She just says randomly that "they plan on throwing pies and Lord knows what else at Republican visitors to the city." Really? Where did she hear this? Is it just posted up on the internet... The agenda for protesting the Republican convention:
Day one, throw pies! Yeah right. First of all, protestors are organized, because nothing gets done in totday's world without being organized and having a plan. They're not going to throw pies or spread AIDS to republican visitors. What does that make them look like? Would a person vote for someone who spreads AIDS on purpose, or for a dignified person wearing a suite and tie discussing politics? The choice is clear. Secondly, Malon says that New York is a city where only flexing your muscles and being tuff will make you successful. How does she know? Was she mayor? No, didn't think so. Atleast she's graduated to having examples to support her random claims now. At any rate, I think this article is bogus, and she be completley ignored by everyone.

In "NYC errs in playing nice with protesters" Bernadette Malone comes on strong as being against the protestors of the Republican National Convention. From the beginning he begins using false analogies in comparing all the protestors to terrorists. He only continues this comparison as the article goes on by comparing the buttons that the New York City mayor is planning to give to the protestors to buttons that should be given to terrorist to say they will not do any harm.

Malone's false analogies are uncalled for because he is stereotyping all of the protestors as being dangerous and saying that their main objective is to inflict harm. Protestors are traveling from all across America to New York, not to create havoc, harm the Republicans and to trick them into getting AIDS, but instead to get their voices heard and America to understand why they do not want Bush back as the president. Every person has a right to protest for what they feel is right so Malone has no reason to jump to conclusions about protestors be terrorist when they have not even had the opportunity to do anything anyway.

It also appears that Malone is using hasty generalization that just because a large number of protestors are going to the Republican National Convention (between 100000 and 250000 are estimated to arrive) there will no doubt be some sort of chaos that occurs. Large numbers of people join together for protests to get attention for it. If no one would show up to protest then no one will understand the importance of what they are doing and thus their protesting would be pointless. Malone seems to be supporting the Republican cause by bad mouthing the Republican haters off in his article as trouble makers.

In Dahlia Lithwick's article "Babies and Bath Water", she sees the modern campaigning between Kerry and Bush as a joke because it is nothing but bashing the other politician's image. They do this so each of them wants to look better for the public to win votes instead of telling about how they would take care of the modern problems they are have. They are just worrying how to look better than the other one.
Ms. Lithwick has evidence to support her opinion on the campaign. She tells about the ridiculous commercial that Kerry's campaign been using to degrade Bush by making fun of his intelligence and how he has everything, instead of telling the public how he is going to resolve the current problems that America is facing at this current time. There is no commercial like those. The public people can relate to this experience because when they turn on their television there will be commercial like the examples Lithwick gave on television or going to movies there will be movies like Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” until the campaign is over.
She uses her great observation skills to point out to America that these campaign bashing is everywhere and needs to stop. She also points out that these commercial not only degrades the running mates but also degrades the people that believes in their party. She informs ridiculousness to the public with her reasons and her supporting evidences. It is clearly shown through the article that each party is being very childish in their campaign to get the public supports.

Derek Christianson
Tryon
English 1101 F5
24 August 2004

Blog Entry 2 – Bernadette Malone, “NYC errs in playing nice with protesters”

Malone most definitely portrays the protests negatively. She starts right off the bat by referring to the protesters as “people who hate Republicans,” saying that they’re going to be releasing swarms of mice in order to terrorize the visiting delegates. Malone goes on for the first few paragraphs explaining what the protesters plan on doing next week, however, she fails to mention where she got her information. Although I feel these protesters are completely capable of doing such horrendous and immature things towards visitors to New York City, am I to take Malone’s word for it?
Based on her diction throughout the article, I’ve come to the conclusion that Bernadette Malone is very against the anti-Republican protesters. Knowing this, I feel it is possible that Malone made up some of these supposed “plans,” or at least exaggerated them to their full extent. Perhaps she has witnessed what the protesters have done in the past, but that’s not to say what they will be doing this election year.
One major logical fallacy in the article is where Malone says that the current mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, overlooks the “basic truth” that the protesters who wear the button are the type of protesters who are not vicious enough to pull off stunts that most would consider disgusting and inhumane. There is no truth in that statement whatsoever. Protesters who are likely to act outrageously during the Republican Convention can not be counted on to reject those buttons. Malone says earlier in her article that the “protester-terrorists” planned on dressing up as RNC volunteers and sending confused visitors in the opposite direction of which they want to go. If these protesters are low enough to pull a stunt like that, what’s stopping them from wearing a button to get discounts around the city, yet breaking the promise and still terrorizing the visiting Republicans?

Lithwick’s view on the treatment of Bush is taken from a one-sided view. Throughout time, many politicians (such as Kerry) try to bad mouth their opponent by making them look like they are incapable of handling the office.

Lithwick’s only true argument is that the Liberals are spending to much time calling Bush a child and not enough time on talking about the issues truly involved. However, the Liberals that are bad mouthing Bush either have little to do with the actual campaign or have also released information on the issues that Kerry and his followers will try to take care of in office. People like Michael Moore are just regular voters who happen to have the ability to have the media access to make a movie like “Fahrenheit 9/11” in order to portray his dislike of Bush to America. For the Liberals directly involved in Kerry’s campaign, they, for the most part, have kept America up with the issues that Kerry plans to manage if he gets to be in office. In the same aspect Bush’s followers have also ran some smear campaigns on Kerry, while still being able to inform America about what Bush plans to accomplish; Lithwick’s story is from a Bush supporters view so of coarse it would be complaining about the poor treatment of Bush by the Liberals. Through Lakoff’s article there is some clear evidence that Conservative’s can be confusing through their actions to Liberals so it is natural that the Conservative’s complain about things the Liberals do, too.

Chris Iogha
Tryon
English 1101 F5
22August, 2004

Blog entry #1 Dahlia Lithwick, “Babies and Bath Water”

Modern politics are droping to new lows and it's becoming more and more apparent. As we know, criticism of our national leaders has always taken place on some level. However, this criticism has gotten out of hand and in-turn belittled our countries political system. President Bush is being "bashed" by people who are saying that he is childish. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" portrays Bush as a childish third grader being read a story by the teacher. What good does this "making fun of" do? Absolutely none. Now, what ever happened to constructive criticism? These are all points of Dahlia Lithwick in her article "Babies and Bath Water."
The main point of this article is that childish name-calling does no good to our nation. In fact, it is detrimental because when the media, movies, magazines, and other sources attack Bush by calling him a child, they are in fact attacking his followers too. Actions like that also make the liberal attackers follow the stereotype that was given to them: the are "snotty know-it-alls." How emberassing.
Lithwick essentially calls for this sort of behavior to stop, and to revert back to the days of constructive criticism that actually got this nation somewhere. Childish behavior and name calling in politics does nothing but impeed progress for our great nation.
All of the above listed points are made in "Babies and Bath Water" by Lithwick. She uses her expertice to make all of these points simplified so that the average American can read and understand what she is saying. The article is a masterpiece in that Lithwick appeals to many readers, makes her point of stopping childish behavior clearly, and supports her points with reasons and examples.

Eric Faust
Tryon
English 1101 F5
19 August 2004

Blog Entry: #1 - "A Smarter Way to Use Our Troops" by Douglas J. Feith

Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, claims that President Bush's new posture toward US global forces will "strengthen our military, invigorate U.S. alliances and improve the lives of our military personnel."

Unfortunately, there is little evidence to support this claim besides opinion (and the opinion of a rather bias source too). However, common sense would bare out many of the claims made. For example, moving 60,000+ troops back to American bases would create a diminished American "footprint" abroad, or that moving soldiers back home/keeping them with their families will be an improvement. Other things, like how this new posture will our negotiations with North Korea, can still be debated at length, and only time will tell.

I find it rather disturbing that part of the government's "pitch" for us to accept these new changes is saying that they have finally come up with a plan that doesn't smack of the Cold War. And that they consulted with experienced field commanders, the Joint Chiefs, foreign allies, etc. to make this plan a working reality. Who else should they have consulted?

This article is really just an explaination of what Bush's new posture will entail and includes some slight justification/support of it. It leaves no room for opposing views, or ways to change the new US global posture.

Derek Christianson
Tryon
English 1101 F5
19 August 2004

Blog Entry 1 – Dahlia Lithwick, “Babies and Bath Water”

Dahlia Lithwick claims in this article that liberals, very well known as “Bush-bashers”, iconize current President George Bush as a child. Her main point is that the liberals should discontinue their efforts to give George Bush a childish view and focus on the real matters: providing the real children with a “safe and just” childhood.

Lithwick supports her claim by saying that “Bush-bashers” only degrade themselves by picturing George Bush as a child because they’re acting how everyone has expected them to act: as “snotty know-it-alls” that think that every Republican is dumb and simple-minded. Her claim that liberals do nothing to win over current Bush followers is supported by the pure fact that they insult the President. She makes an excellent point that when they insult the President, they’re also insulting the people who voted for him because they believe in the same ideas and principles.

Lithwick doesn’t have very much hard evidence, except in the paragraph where she describes the Presidential debates in the year 2000. She recalled Al Gore’s reactions to everything Bush said. Al Gore was all “sighs and eye-rolls,” which signaled his feeling like an adult debating with a grade-school punk. Liberals could easily debate this information as hard evidence, but sighs and eye-rolls are easy indicators as to how Al Gore pictured George Bush. Although she may not have very much evidence, her logic makes sense.

Rather than referring to research and other hard evidence, Lithwick relies on her own expert opinion. She notices that the liberals tend to only focus on George Bush and ignore his extremely talented staff of advisors that have accomplished a myriad of tasks since Bush has been in office. Lithwick never really acknowledged the opposing viewpoints, but did touch on how the common liberals compares everything the President does to how a child functions and thinks.

read: Lakoff (OL)
2-3 articles (OL)

***note: please be sure to get blogs posted 8 PM on the day
prior to when the assignment is due.***

If you are reading this that is good.
Try testing whether you can post comments.
If not contact Prof. Tryon.