In response to my first blog post

I still agree with some aspects of my first blog. Mainly, that protests should be attention grabbing to get their issue across. I could take back that a protest can be small and still be effective. It is possible, but there are very few examples to provide as evidence for that. I can provide evidence against it, Malachi Ritscher’s protest was very small, just himself. Even though he committed suicide to prove his point, which you would think would be very attention grabbing, it really only grabbed negative attention. Some say, he could have done a lot more if he had stayed alive and watched things change. What I would also like to mention now is that a protest does not have to be simply a march or demonstration. They can be songs or art. Anything, really, that makes a point, and is trying to get an issue across, would be considered a protest. It is certainly more effective, if it is large in number, attention grabbing, and already has a lot of believers. And also, the protest doesn’t actually have to involve people, as much as just one person. It only takes one person to hold a sign, write a song, or paint something inspirational.

Protest Songs

For the best protest song I could find, I of course picked one from my favorite band Death Cab for Cutie, I picked their song “President of What?” In my opinion this song makes an enormous statement against President Bush and the war. Quotes from it such as “Because beautiful boys gave chase and when they arch your backbone it’s such a dreadful sight. Something’s got to break you down…” This quote is explaining how President Bush sent young boys off to the war who were proud to serve their country and that when they do what they are told and die, it is a dreadful sight. It also in a way describes how the war turned beautiful boys into killing machines. Another quote that makes it a protest song is “you drove straight through and mined that quarry for all it could bleed ‘til dry…” This quote is explaining how Bush sent the troops to drive straight through Iraq and bomb it until the entire enemy was gone. Protest songs are very effective in my opinion. They are a form of art and therefore more appealing to the public. People listen to music more often than they get involved in a demonstration. So, a protest in the form of a song is more likely to be taken seriously than an unknown march. Especially, coming from a famous musician or group.

The rhetoric of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore

Lately in class we have been looking at Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. In essence these two are complete opposites. Ann Coulter being a stubborn conservative and Michael Moore a stubborn liberal. They are most definitely protesting. Ann Coulter protests liberals and their beliefs systems; she doesn’t have a very good way of going about it, but that is what she is doing. Michael Moore protests the Bush administration and the real reason why we went to war with Iraq. Ann Coulter uses personal attacks to protest while Michael Moore provides some sketchy evidence in documentaries to support his feelings about Bush. They are popular because of the tactics they use to get people interested. Ann Coulter uses attacking humor, conservative witticisms, and just plain mocking. While, Michael Moore uses emotional clips, humor in pointing out Bush’s flaws, and the raw truth to get his point across. Moore definitely uses more pathos and logos than Coulter. I would say Coulter uses her own ethos to write her protests rhetorically. The conclusions you can draw from their popularity is either for entertainment purposes or people who identify with their political parties are buying their argument. So their popularity is based on entertainment or partisan identification.

Ann Coulter

From first impression, I find Ann Coulter very defensive and rude. She uses an attacking tone to illustrate her points and argument. Even when Al Franken proved point blank that she was in fact lying in her book; she blatantly denied it. And then she tried to explain what she meant and to justify it, but she did no such thing. All she seems to do is attack others with no good reason. Elizabeth Edwards was completely right in calling her, and Coulter was right in saying that she should just stop writing then because all of her books or blogs are personal attacks. I do not find her arguments persuasive at all. She is simply attacking and arguing in an unfriendly way. Perhaps, if she was presenting her points in a friendlier way, I might have been able to identify with her. But, me being a liberal, completely makes that impossible. She is attacking all liberals or anyone who is not a conservative. The people who will find her arguments persuasive are the conservative population. She says she does not like hate speech; well that is hypocritical of her. She is all about hate speech just from these clips. As for fallacies, the majority of Coulter’s writing are fallacies. Al Franken said he found one of many lies. Also, her books are full of her own beliefs which are also fallacies. Ann Coulter just broadcasts a very unlikeable personality on her own part, and results in many not liking her.

Viral videos and Jesus Camp

This week class has been quite interesting, not that it isn’t always. But I really enjoyed the videos we watched on Monday. I am a huge Obama supporter so I loved the Will-I-Am video. It just evoked so much passion for his causes that it reaches out to people who maybe do not even support him. And as for George Allen, well he wasn’t portrayed very well, and I cannot see a reason for defending him in anyway. I think there was substantiate proof that he meant what he said and was fully aware. Now turning to the video we just watched in class today. It seems that Jesus Camp argues that its subjects are the key generation involved in making Jesus come back. It is also obvious that they are trying to train them into being “soldiers of God” to fight the war against the government and non-Christians. It portrays them in a positive and negative light simultaneously. It is positive in the way that the kids are so actively involved in their religion and that is a good thing. But it can be seen as negative to take it so far. It is a lot of pressure for children, especially when many of them cry at every session. These ministers argue that they are teaching these children to seek God and Jesus and to fight for them. My reaction to this movie was utter shock. I am a Christian, but it seems that this camp has really crossed a line. Prayer is not allowed in schools because it offends other children who are not Christians. Not everyone is a Christian nor will they ever be. The Jesus Camp ministers need to realize this and leave some pressure off of these children. It is scary to think of how the children might turn out. Will they rebel later in life? Or will they pursue this “war for God” and continue to train their children? It is all just very confusing.

My writing process

Before I started my paper I definitely thought about the critiques made on my two page paper and tried to apply them to this first major paper. First, I searched on the internet for a few interesting protests. Once I decided on the Iranian women, then I searched for credible articles on the actual protest. Then I went on to my introduction and summarizing their points of view. I didn’t really write an outline, I just somewhat free-wrote for a while. I started the paper a week earlier to give myself enough time to prepare. This definitely helped in the whole process. The easiest parts of the paper for me are the introduction and conclusion. For some reason, I always get writer’s block when trying to put together the body paragraphs. The paragraphs have to flow smoothly with good content and very few grammatical errors. I definitely always like to write in a quiet environment. I do love music, but it would distract me from the task at hand. I also do need a clear surface to write because it makes it easier to think, if that makes sense. Clutter around me equals clutter in my mind. That is my writing process in a nut shell.

The Yes Men and the Punk Culture

The Yes Men and the Punk Rock culture both had very different ways of protesting through their appearance. The Yes Men had more of a silly approach to their appearance to poke fun at the WTO. The punk rock culture went with a more grunge, don’t care what I look like style to protest authority and societal norms. Both of these “styles” do relate to the groups’ values of what they are actually standing for. The punks are saying, I don’t have to look a certain way to be a good person, or a good member of society, and their style also says I cannot be ordered around. Whereas, the Yes Men’s appearance was a ridiculous suit to point out the flaws of the WTO. Andy and Mike create a relatable ethos. For example, their comedic way of showing their values makes them easier to listen to or to establish the same beliefs. The Punk culture conveys a totally different kind of ethos. They give off an untouchable attitude. Almost like, if you don’t believe what I believe then you cannot associate with me. But, yes I would categorize the punk clothing at the very beginning of the culture as a protest. As punk became more mainstream, the protest aspect of it died along with the real image.