GT Group 1

Bernadette Malone:NYC errs in playing nice with protesters

This article by, Bernadette Malone, is to me a pointless attempt to attack a political party, that she really doesn’t justify which party she is attacking. Maybe her goal in writing this article is to ridicule protestors. This is where the confusion comes in, why would she talk about the people who she should be swinging votes to her to the side of the democrats. The article itself draws its readers in, but just seems like a waist of time.
The key theme in the article is against Republican protestors of NYC. The way she presents this article, she is attacking her audience. She never really makes clear who she is trying to influence, this is my assumption. If the reader was a protestor this would probably upset them. If the reader was a regular citizen this could make you laugh. So really I don’t know what she really wants out of this article. This would do more damage then would help any situation. If she was trying to attack the Republican protestors, she did it the worst possible way. I always thought that was dumb to attack your audience.
As I analyze this article her use of pathos, ethos, and logos were not even present. Throughout my blog entry I keep saying this article is pointless. This is because I strongly feel it is. She does make a few good points about some acts done by the protestors, but isn’t really appealing to me. Also attacking the mayor was not even necessary. Maybe there is a hidden agenda in this article. By the standards of pathos, ethos, and logos it is badly written.

"Electornic Democracy and the Xbox Generation" presentation

This presentation, while frot with technical difficulties, was actually rather informative. Our presentor, the director of Publius.com, told us about the history and technical background behind the Publius project. While his stream of consciousness style of presentation could get annoying, in that it skipped from topic to topic almost randomly, it did cover a lot. He told us about the origins of Publius and how it evolved into what it is today.
One thing I realized when I walked away from the presentation were how long the gaps were between important events. When dealing with the government you seem to get either get ignored completely or get overworked like crazy. On top of that the whole "I am not a millionaire" aspect to Vince can be a real turn-off for many entrepreneurial types. So it seems like you have to stick with it for a while and be willing to not get a lot in return.
One final note; one of the questions asked of Vince was what programing language they used when they started Publius. Vince said that they started with Java, but are now using things like Oracle. If you ever take a CS class you will probably learn either Java or something that is extremely similar. So PAY ATTENTION. If you ever want to start something like Publius it seems to come in real handy.

The two questions that I have for Vince Keenan is “What was his motivation for starting his project?” and “What is Vince next step in his project?”

The whole message from Vince Keenan is that if you have an idea, then go for it. I agree with his message. Instead of wondering what would happen if you did what you wanted to do, you should go do it and experience it. Vince Keenan had an idea, and he went for it . His idea started as a hobby for him then it became a big project with the Michigan government to help out the people to understand more about about the voting process, voting sites, how to register to vote, and even gave a sample voting ballot. He did many trials and error to get where he is with his idea, and it paid off for him. He was not only a hard worker but also smart because he used the technology that was growing in popularity to public which is the internet. Each year Vince made a new website to improve the functions on his site for the people of Michigan to understand better what they were doing on the website; and it was use to help the public to fully understand to be a better voter. He gave this message to the Tech not to tell about his accomplishment but to tell them that if you have an idea that you are seeking you should go for it and work hard for it to make it happen. That’s the only way you will not have any regrets. Overall, I think that his message was very good for the people that were there to understand to take actions and stop wondering.

After leaving the lecture hall I was thinking about what compelled Vince Keenan to spur this whole project. He says because he had trouble finding his voting location during the 1996 Presidential Primaries. He luckily got his vote in, thanks to that 80-year-old man. Had I been in his position, I would have been thankful for the old man and moved on. I probably would forget everything having to do with voting until the next presidential election. Vince, however, realized his problem MUST be shared with thousands of other voters in his state. He had the initiative and the determination to help other people, and in my opinion, that makes him a great citizen. Not only does he share my enthusiasm about computers and emerging technologies, but he now plays a very useful and practical part in society (at least in Michigan). I can't recall exactly how many people he said he had helped, but it was an overwhelming amount. How many people can say they've helped that many people? I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan that get stressed over the voting structure there and scramble looking for the information they need to get their vote cast. Now all those confused, would-be voters have to do is log on to www.sospublius.org (which, in my opinion, is easy enough to remember) and simply type in their name and find out where they have to go! I don't know what the people are like from Michigan, but I'm sure they can all remember their own names. And the best part? They even get a map to where they have to go. How much easier can it get. But with out all the work of determining where to vote and how to get there, could voters in Michigan become lazy? Maybe; but at least more people will have the opportunity to vote, and that, my blog-readers, is what counts. Thank you and good night.

So how important are the presidential debates? The debates are everything, according to Eleanor Clift, a writer for Newsweek. Gore would have won the 2000 election had he not screwed up the debates. That demonstrates how important these debates really are. So who is more prepared for this particular set of debates... Bush or Kerry? Well, so far, both are equally prepared. On Kerry's side, he's got a national collegiate debate champion. On Bush's side, he's got a very experienced national debater who has learned from his mistakes. It will be very interesting to see who wins.
The article continues and tells us what is imporant in debates. It seems to emphasize emotion. I agree totally. The more passionate you are about a subject, the better. It shows your audience that you care, and caring is something you need to show when you're trying to look better than another candidate. You should also be prepared to answer anything, and not be put on the defensive. You should analyze every angle of attack and be totally prepared and confident. It's all about image in a televised debate.
That brings me to another point. In my opinion, debates should be on the radio only, or on TV but with no picture. This would force audiences to choose their candidate based on what he says, not how he looks. You may think you're choosing based on ideas, but more than likely it's subconsciously based on looks. Just an interesting point for you to think about!

Jimmy Carter says voting is likely to be unfair this election

Jim Holt makes a good point that citizens should vote out of duty, however there is no real point to voting if you're not voting out of self-interest. I believe that citizens should vote, most importantly, out of self-interest. Vote for what you want and what you believe in. However, it is the duty of an American citizen to play his or her part in the Presidential Campaign process and cast a vote. If everyone would vote for who they want, we would have a truly fair election (depending on whether or not you believe the Electoral College is fair or not, but that's a whole other discussion on its own). Of course it seems impossible that just one vote could sway the election, but if everyone feels that they might as well not waste their time and vote, then the people who DO make it to the polls are gaining more power. One person might not make a difference, but large groups really can sway an election. The Bush and Kerry campaign could really make their efforts even more worth their while if they could find a way to stress how important it is that everyone votes. If everyone continues to believe that their vote doesn't count, the number of voters will decline. The Democratic part shows through their actions that they value the vote greatly by registering federal inmates and mentally disabled people. In the future, the party who stresses the importance of voting more could very well be the one that wins.

The question is whether or not the electoral college should exist. Is it constitutional? Does it go against what the founding fathers said? The answer is yes, it should exist. It functions as a way to protect small states and give them a real voice in who becomes president. If anything, it is MORE constitutional BECAUSE it gives everyone an equal voice, instead of letting the bigger states like Texas and California just run everything. However, a downside is that it makes it very difficult for third parties to get elected, or even get electoral votes. The best example is with Ross Perot getting 19% of the popular vote, but not a single electoral college vote. That is probly the most un-democratic aspect of the college. Overall though, it is a system that works. Out of all the years there have only been three instances where the college elected someone other than the popular vote winner. It is a system that works, and it is a system that should not be changed.

In "Still No Votes in Leipzig" Jonathan Freedland believes that everyone in the world should have the opportunity to vote in America's election. According the Freedland "if everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote;" however, what Freedman is not considering is the domestic factor of what is occurring in America too. Yes, America along with every other country has international affairs that affect other countries and sometimes the entire world, but that does not open their election or assignment of a commander/king to the entire world. America has many domestic issues that need to be taken care of too, and of these domestic issues only a few people outside of America would actually understand how they needed to be treated. Most foreigners do not keep track of what is going on in America, with the exception of what gets put on national news so when one of them would go and vote, they would not care if the person that they were voting for was going to improve the economy, school systems, health care, or social security. Instead, their votes would be based on what happens outside of America like the invasion into Iraq and other international moves America has made. Allowing outsiders to vote also can cause problems in what happens to our defense system since many countries are pretty much against America being so powerful in defense and ready to invade if an attack is made on any democracy government by a communist government or a terrorist organization. It could also allow our national defense to go down allowing the safety of the American people to be at danger for more terrorist invasions or possible attacks from other foreign powers. To give billions of people the ability to vote in an American election would make the election pretty much one-sided by the fact that most of the foreigners will probably vote for the same person, and the actual American people would not be able to get a voice in the decision to elect their own president. In order to vote in an American election you need to be an American citizen or be legally living in America.

The subject on the electoral college is a big has become a big debate sense the 2000 election when it was Bush vs Gore. They way I see it is that electoral college is here to stay for another four elections if these elections are close in the poles. The reason that it is not here is because of the United States history and who came up with it. George Washinton as one of the founding fathers of the US gave little states a louder voice. An understandable goal, but today does that do more damage than good now that the US has expanded across the specific. Only we can judge.

History could have went so many different ways and should of in many cases. As the electoral college proves in perfect do we want to keep letting history repeat it self. Majority of people wanted Gore to be president in the 2000 election. How is it fair or even justified that more than 50% of the US want another President, but instead because how the system works that person does not get selected. how is this system justified in anyway. I do not understand why they have taken this subject on a national level. Then agin ther are draw backs if the college if taken awyay. The smaller states wont be recognized and people that live in the rural area.

What I know is that this issue needs to be futher adressed and soon. Right now democrats are at a disadvantage becaus how far spread the Replubicans are in different counties. Puts them at a disadvantage. Voting is hard enough for most people so why not let the popular wote het waht the want.

Kerry Campaign runs out of ammunition

The fact that the Kerry Campaign is in a maniacal frenzy is yet to be decided, however all of the indicators appear to be true. I have witnessed many of the actions of the Kerry campaign first-hand. I've seen John Kerry appear on not just major network shows, such as Regis and Kelly, The Leno show, The Letterman show, but I've also seen him on the Comedy Central Network show, The Daily Show. What business does John Kerry have on the Daily Show? The show is very well known for it's comedic and satirical view on politics. Kerry is obviously making his appearances on shows that appeal to those people who don't enjoy watching your standard, "boring" politics. Kerry showed up and spent about ten minutes speaking to John Stewart about some of the recent events between the Bush and Kerry campaign, and Kerry was giving off the appearance of being a very nice, old man. And he very well might be. However, for all we know, it's all a skit put on for the people who don't care about politics who need a reason to vote one way or the other. If I didn't really care about politics, but saw this real friendly guy on a comedy show, that would give me somewhat of a reason to vote, would it not? The Kerry campaign cannot deny that this is the purpose for his appearances on these shows. The article also goes on the describe some of the other actions of the Kerry campaign that indicate that they're becoming desparate, such as registering federal inmates so they can vote when the time comes. This is not surprising, coming from the Left Wing, seeing how it happens almost every campaign. The article makes a very strong, yet subtle, point in it's closure. Phil Valentine is sure to interject that thousands of "law-abiding citizens" should counter one federal inmate at the polls. What better way to discredit the Kerry Campaign than to make it sound like it's supported by a bunch of prisoners?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040811-121653-6678r

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005536

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040920105109990001

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39747-2004Sep21.html

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=abvSqmQeuZSU&refer=us

2 Iraq Views, 2 Campaigns
by: David E. Sanger
Published: September 22, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/politics/campaign/22assess.html?hp

This article is an analysis of the current situation voters and the two candidates are facing. Bush is standing by his position that America should have invaded Iraq, while Kerry is saying that America should now begin to pull out. The article takes a decidedly objective stance on their positions, instead prefering to report what these positions actually are. It does have a slight subtext of social comment though. For example, as foreign policy (Iraq) will most likely be the deciding factor in the upcoming election it is rather odd that it has taken this long for the issue to recieve "center stage" attention. Before now the two candidates' military record had that honor. It seems that the media has begun placing greater and greater stock in political mud-slinging.
As it stands now the voters must choose between the conservative Bush and "the other guy". At this point beyond his military service, the war on Iraq, the fact that he is a Democrat, and he might be a flip-flopper little has been mentioned about what Kerry will be/do as president. America knows who Bush is and his campaign strategy reflects that, he has always been for the war (go figure). It is up to Kerry to present himself as just consistent.
Basically Bush's stand on Iraq has been that we needed to "go in" and oust Saddam. Kerry's campaign has yet to capitalize on the increasing disallusionment the lack of concrete results Bush's stand is causing.

This blog is a response to Kevin Grebb' blog entry to Scott Lehigh's article. From reading Kevin's blog, it seems he read the article thoroughly to take apart the articles on which Lehigh did wrong and did right. It easily shown from Kevin's blog entry that the article he used for his blog entry thinks it is wrong for girls to be having sex in high school. Kevin tells how the author used letters from why it is good and why it is bad, but their arguments were weak. Kevin mentions that he uses examples to support his arguments. The author seems to use only the example that would help his argument out, so he never uses an example why sex is ok. The closing of his article has examples of girls that regrets of having sex in high school, so the article is one sided. It seems there are no examples for girls who did not regret having sex. The author uses this technique to show ethos and pathos to his readers, so he can persuade them into his point of view on teen sex. The author believes that the people needs good reasons to have sex and not a stupid one. That is something many people believe but not all.

Derek Christianson
Blog Entry #4 – Narrative Argument Group Analysis

Despite some computer problems in the beginning, I think the group did a great job. I think just about every group had minor problems, and that's understandable, but I easily understood what this group was trying to get across. I can actually say I really learned something, which is not too often the case when it comes to group presentations from students (no offense to other students, but we're not all natural-born teachers). The quiz was a great way to involve the class and to see for themselves how well they did teaching the class. I, for one, felt that the quiz was a good way to see if I knew what I had learned. I did notice that some members were not fully prepared and did not know all about what they were presenting. Lucky for those people their group members did. So even though not everyone did well individually, they all did well as a group to get their point across. And although candy does not help anybody learn anything, it was a nice and tasty touch. Hoo-yah for the Narrative Arguments Group!

Derek Christianson
Blog Entry #3 – Cline Essay

I strongly agree with what Cline has to say. News sources are commonly accused of being largely subjective. One source may always seem to be against Bush, while another source may always seem to be against him. Of course, they never come out and state who they are for against. They leave it up to the people to figure out who they’re for. Republicans and Democrats alike will probably tend to watch the news source that supports their people more often. This leads to an even larger political gap in between the two parties. If Republicans are always hearing what they want to hear from their favorite news source and Democrats are always hearing what they want to hear from their news source of choice, then debates between the two parties can get particularly heated.

I think it’s only fair that the news sources report exactly what went on without their comments and thoughts interjected. That is the purpose of news: so people know what’s going on. I think it’s possible that candidates pay certain news sources to report the news as they want it to be reported, hopefully so people will favor them more. People should be allowed to hear the news as everything happened and not as they want us to think it happened. All the side notes and comments brought in by journalists can sway our opinions when it comes to certain issues. I feel it’s very important to keep all news objective and let people figure stuff out for themselves, otherwise arguments are poisoned with biases and sometimes false information.

"The Fairness Bias of Journalism"
Posted by: Danizzle
Group 2

The first thing one notices about "Dani"'s (boy/girl?) writing style is that is very informal, chosing to use personal pronouns often, however it also establishes the writer's ethos. This "shot from the hip" style of writing can be limiting unfortunately because it makes the writing very opinionative, but it does connect well with readers who are not very interested in critiquing the writer. You also get the feeling that the writer was reading the article as he was writting this blog because it is very 'stream of conciousness' which, again, goes back to the informal writing style.
It boils down to being a good 'how'd you like this article?' peice but not a very good analysis. Dani almost completely leaves out how Cline (the author of piece) established himself as the writer (ethos), how his evidence was relevent (logos), or how he emotionally connected with the reader (pathos). This also has the effect of weakening Dani's logos because any arguments Dani tries to make are based on his own opinions rather than the facts he got from his analysis of Cline's work.

A movie review is an example of an evaluation argument. In Steve Murray's review on Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, he begins his review like any other movie review by giving a short summary about what the movie is about. “Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence” is a squeal to the influential 1995 Japanese film. He claims that the movie is good because he believes that this movie is one of the best eye compelling visual effects to be seen this year. This article is an evaluation argument because it has the basic formula to make an evaluative argument. The formula is X is a Y because it has these criteria. Murray’s X is “Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence”, his Y is that movie is good, and his criteria is that it has one of the best visual effect for a motion picture to be seen this year. Murray makes this argument because he wants the public to go watch the Japanese animation. His criteria are there to persuade the public to go watch it. His last statements in his review “let the images of Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence wash over you, and enjoy the beautiful ride.” pretty much tells what he thinks about the movie. Murray’ movie review is a good example of an evaluation argument because it has what it all needs.

I thought this group's presentation was ok. In the beginning, the first speaker definitely did not talk loud enough. I'm in the second row and could barely hear him! A good thing was that he explained first what a narrative argument was and did. They gave two examples of a narrative arguement: song lyrics, and the Martin Luther Kind story. Discussion followed both of these examples, which promoted class interaction. A negative about the presentation was that they got sidetracked with trying to get their file to work on the computer. When a bump like that happens, you should continue discussing a past subject, or do something productive to keep the momentum of the presentation. Later on, a visual was presented on Microsoft Word. It was then explained by a group member who proceeded to say "I don't know, whatever." Probably not something you would want to say during a presentation. Finally, the group explained how to write a narrative argument. Overall, the presentation was alright, but more preperation needed to be done by some of the group members.

This group had good interaction with the class. Their use of the movie examples was quite good because it made the class interact with them and talk. However, when they were introducing the three types of evalutation arguments, it would've been helpful to write them on the board so the people taking notes could look up and easily see them, instead of relying on the one chance when the presenters said them to take the notes. Another thing that was good about the presentation was the use of the video from the internet. The video was long and drawn out, and while I was listening, I didn't really get the point. However, at the end of the video, they explained it's signifigance and it all made sense. Plus, it furthered group discussion. Yet another positive was the handout at the end of the presentation, which was also explained by a group member. Overall, the presentation was very good, and very thoughtful.

Dr. Cline is saying that there is absolutely no good journalism today in our country. The sad truth about his essay is that it is true there is no good journalism. Journalist and journalism should not persuade the citizen decision making on important issues in our country like the campaign. The media should give only the straight out truth and should not put comments or opinions about the issues that is presented because it can sway a person’s decision to the other decision because of the comment on the news. Biased media is something that cannot be stopped because it has evolved into this hideous monster that the citizens see in their daily lives, which conceals them from seeing the actual facts. The idea of discipline of verification can give the media to revive back into “objective” journalism. This idea is saying that the facts should be taken out the lies and false information and only use the correct information. Dr. Cline uses a great example about the idea of discipline of verification. When the candidates uses all their money for the campaign telling lies and twisted truth, the media should be able to filter their campaign, use the truth and facts about the campaign, and present to the public. Therefore the public only sees and hears unbiased information from the journalist, so the public can decide which is better for one to run the country by the truth and not by the twisted media we have today. Hopefully the journalist can “rediscovered the meaning of ‘objective’ reporting.”

Christopher Iogha
Tryon
English 1101 F5
Sept. 13, 2004

Cline is absolutely right. Citizens should be able to make up their own mind about such political issues as aborsion, gun control, convicts' rights, as well as every other issue in the world today. The responsiblity of media is simply to report what is going on on both sides of the story. People can make up their own mind. This practice of biased journalism is wrong and should be stopped. The fairness bias of journalism says that journalists should give both sides of the story. Again, this is correct. In addition to the fairness bias, Cline states that journalists should "operate with a discipline of verification," meaning that they should verify their facts, then weed out the false information, then right the article using the correct facts. Finally, in the last paragraph, Cline contradicts himself. All throughout the piece, he says how to use only correct information and true statements, when in the last paragraph he says "I think it's always a bad idea to curtail speech." And "Let them spout of whatever nonsense they please." This goes against his wanting of true facts in the news and media. However, he skillfully adds that journalists and reporters, using the above skills of fairness and verification, will weed out the false things, and present only real information to the citizens, who will in turn make their own decisions.

Preventive War: A Failed Doctrine
New York Times Editorial
Published Sept. 12, 2004

This is perhaps the most anti-"Bush on Defense" piece of writing I have ever read. It is sharp and accurate (factually). It points out everything that America (or should I say the media) has called into question or thought of as wrong. Even the Bush administration realized, and admitted, it was wrong on several key counts such as Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But they have yet to do anything to correct these "mistakes" (ie. military deployments, political doctrine, etc).

The writer establishes good logos by listing off a number of the confirmed "mistakes" the Bush administration has committed in the last four years. Even if the reader has a rudimentory knowledge of the current political situation in the world he is led to believe what the writer is saying has merit. When you stop to think about it many of the Bush administrations decisions almost seem fanatic and counter to much of what America is supposed to stand for. America basically isn't allowed to allowed to attack hypothetical targets. That is almost the same as arresting (in this case killing) people who might commit a crime. If you look at it like that even Republicans would abandon the persuit (out of fear of political suicide). The government scared itself into becoming an unnecessary aggressor.

The fact that the writer is not a fanatic about his presentation actually works to create better ethos for him. It is a fact that most people are moderates, the author uses a writing style that makes him sound like a common moderate who is simply pointing out some of the failures of the current administration.

This also has the double effect of making all pathos counter-arguments seem weak and baseless. The writer makes the reader feel he is a calm, objective, rational individual talking about an emotion, almost frantic with fear group which has show it is willing and able to abuse the power it was given.

Andrew Cline claims that "objectivity is not a stance; it's a process." He believes that the majority of news reported today is nothing but "he said, she said" gossip, and not actually news. He understands that it is impossible to report an event "as it happened", but that should not stop news organizations from trying. Cline wants there to be more facts about an issue than heresay from both sides of that issue. Cline thinks reporters should "write down whatever happens or whatever is said and relay it without comment."

Unfortunately Cline does not provide a lot of evidence that news organizations are not presenting objective information. His point of contention is that news organizations follow a different defination of 'objectivity' - presenting whatever either side of an issue say to balance out what people hear - than his own. For this reason his logos is rather weak.

Cline seems to feel rather strongly about what he is saying. His strong, affirmative style of writing makes us feel that what he is saying is some sort of "cause" for him. This creates strong ethos and pathos for Cline. However arguments are usually not won with emotion and charisma alone.

The work as a whole has the feel of a definition argument but because he concedes that news organizations due in fact fit 'a' definition of objectivity he significantly erodes his own claims and chance to change things.

This article or blog was hard to keep up with, but from what I understand it to be it makes perfect sense. Journalism is not how it used to to be and Andrew Cline gives good examples on what it is today, and also a good explation on what it shoud be. The way its explained by Andrew is that reporters have gotten lazy on the job. They don't so real journalism and do, according to andrew, they do the he say, she say stuff, which is the easiest type of journlism technique used in the buisness.

How Andrew relays this information to the reader, this seems like a news article within itself. I agree with what Andrew has to say on the journalism subject especially the part about the way a reporter should do the objective process of verifying the facts and report the results of that verification as news, you know the hard way. The opinions presented in the article seems like fact that could really draw a reader in to his train f thought. I suggest everybody reads this article. This is some good stuff.

http://rhetorica.net/archives/002521.html

Dahlia Lithwick begins "Babies and Bath Water" uniquely with two examples of current "Bush-bashing" that are evident in the media today. The instances used devastatingly relay the misconception that president Bush is a non-man, a child. She then retorts, "What's wrong with continuing efforts to characterize Mr. Bush as a not-particularly-smart third grader?" Subsequently, she answers her inquiry with a series of mixed arguments of logos, pathos, and ethos, with various emphases on each of the three tactics.

She begins gaining the trust of her audience through logos by calling those who make these ridiculous statements hypocrites. Rather than argue for Mr. Kerry, his supporters would rather childishly insult Mr. Bush. They are obviously guilty of snotty name-calling, which is a well-known display of immaturity. Therefore, they are speaking the language of adolescence themselves.

Not only are these criticizers labeling the president an ignorant baby, they are also dismissing his "voters as stupid-children-by-association," Dahlia rants. The author condemns these anti-Bush people for falsely calling the Bush voters dumb; then she also contrarily names them smart Bush voters. This is one example of how Ms. Lithwick cleverly uses pathos to get an emotional rise out of her audience.

Creating a sincere ethos, while still appealing to pathos, Dahlia Lithwick persuades us that she holds the audience's best interests near and dear to her heart. She admits that, "There is a psychological consequence to labeling the president an incurious frat boy. . . We craft excuses for his childish behaviors." If president Bush makes a mistake it can be easily dismissed since complex reasoning is quite challenging for kids.

I believe that Lithwick's appeal to ethos is slightly weak, or the least effective of the three appeals, simply because she could have been more persuasive. She does not strongly establish her expertise with other opinions. However, she does convince us well that she cares about the audience above all.

The climax of the article, in my opinion, is the extremely effective concluding appeal to the nation's values (pathos): "With each comparison between the president and a youngster, we subtly lower national expectations and exonerate bad behavior." Following this remark, Lithwick continues to arouse care and concern with her ending remark. She shifts the reader's focus from the pointless allusions to the president to what is truly important, "offering our real children a safe and just [childhood]."


*note: This was originally posted in a blog entitled "Lithwick Analysis" rather than under group one.

Article - mirror (no sign-in required)