In 1863, president Abraham Lincoln signed in the Emancipation Proclamation, which claimed “all persons held as slaves within the rebellious areas are, and henceforward shall be free.” Nevertheless black people still could not get respect from white people in United States. They could not go to the same school with white people, they could not vote for the policy events which have connect with them, and also they could not get respect from other people because their skin color. In a word, they had not freedom actually. As a result, a great people named Martin Luther King gave a speech “I have a dream” at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. in 1963.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream of Equality, by Xiaoting Liu
Friday, February 18, 2011
Randy Pausch Urges Audience to Achieve Childhood Dreams, by Jeremy Noble
During Randy’s last speech he was very happy, humorous, and shared inspirational life lessons. The lecture he gives is to his kids and it is about achieving your childhood dreams. It was based upon if you had to give a last lecture before you die, what would it be. Randy runs through all the experience he has gone through in his life and how the people and situations have affected him. There are two ways that Randy could have gone. He could have been depressed and upset, or he could cherish the time he had left and make it what it’s worth. He decided to look at his death as a positive thing and cherish every moment he had left. He does not look as this situation as unfair but as the way the world works. He uses a quote to sum this expression “We all stand on the dart board, but a very small amount of us are going to get hit by the dart called pancreatic cancer.” This quote explains itself by saying that being hit with this illness is just the way the world works. Some people are going to get sick and die and he is one of those people.
Throughout Randy’s speech he uses personal stories, quotes, humor, and life lessons to get his point across of achieving your childhood dreams. Randy uses personal stories that all sorts of people can relate to. There is a story where Randy was in football practice and his coach was riding him all practice. There was nothing Randy could to right in the coach’s mind. After practice the assistant coach goes up to Randy and says “Coach Graham rode you pretty hard today didn’t he” and Randy replied “Yeah.” The coach says back to him “that’s a good thing. When you are screwing up and nobody says anything to you anymore, then that means they have given up.” The whole general idea of this story is to make Randy realize that when people are on your case and correcting you, it means the care about you and want to make you better. A lot of people can relate to this example in many different ways other then in sports. This makes the audience think about times when people are on your case and that they are doing it for a reason.
Randy persuades his audience to achieve their childhood dreams. He uses life lessons and quotations to make people want to change and live their life to the fullest. An example of this is "It's not about how to achieve your dreams, it's about how to lead your life, ... If you lead your life the right way, the karma will take care of itself, the dreams will come to you." This is an example of Randy telling the audience a quote and making them think to themselves. There are many different thoughts that could be going through their minds. He uses his example of being very sick to make people realize how lucky they are. One example he says is to put yourself into his position. Think about how it would affect if you were told that you only have 3 to 6 months left to live. It really puts your life into perspective for yourself and makes you think. One day you could be here and the next day you could be gone. During Randy’s speech he uses humor to keep the audience attentive and interested. He does not want his speech to be a sad speech and all about him but rather what do with your life and to be grateful for what you have. He is positive through the whole experience since finding out about his diagnosis. People look at this as very inspirational because he does not curl up in a ball and dwell on what has happened. Instead, he is positive about it and makes the most out of the rest of his life. At the very end he sums up his speech and the type of person he is. He says he did this speech for his kids and to teach them life values.
A View into the Flaws of U.S. Immigration Laws, by Clay Danielsen
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
Susan Thornton Hopes to End Abuse, by Skylar Anderson
The cycle of domestic violence is seemingly endless and statistics seem to show a gradual increase in the number of reported domestic violence cases today. But why do we often find ourselves hitting the ‘channel’ button on the remote every time a news reporter blabs on about a new case of these crimes? Domestic violence has become such a prevalent issue in our society today that we each write it off as a too-complicated, common happenstance. It is easy to write off the issue as too difficult to think about, and move on with our lives. The Denver Post’s Susan Thornton aims to bring attention to the “Women’s Crisis and Family Outreach Center” in Douglas county, which is a safe shelter for battered women. She hopes to push the citizens of Colorado to think about domestic violence again, and to help get battered women the help that they deserve. Susan Thornton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade her readers to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center.
Susan Thornton opens her argument with “We know a lot about domestic violence,” using the word “we” to include all of her readers (Thornton). She grabs the attention of the reader by referring directly to the target audience. The reader will either choose to identify with Thornton at this point, or will doubt her claim, feeling falsely addressed. In order to restore certainty in those who may doubt her assumption that everyone knows a lot about domestic violence, she moves on to talk about common beliefs about domestic violence. She mentions how children exposed to violence at home tend to be more hyperactive, stressed, throw more temper tantrums, and are more likely to commit suicide or repeat the cycle of violence in their own families later on in life (Thornton). Now that the audience is aware of the common ground ideas about violence, she ponders, “We all know [these common beliefs], so why do we as a society do so little about it?” again using the word “we,” to suggest that ignoring domestic violence includes everyone. This is her call to action, and request for a sense of collective consciousness within society members. By widening her target audience with the all-inclusive “we”, Thornton surely also hopes to catch the attention of the battered women who choose to remain quiet about struggles at home. Maybe the abused will be able to feel a sense of a commonplace with the rest of the world when Thornton places us all in the same category. And this commonplace could also give the battered women the sense of community and belonging needed to come forward and seek help from the Women’s Crisis Center.
The use of inductive reasoning—that is, using a number of smaller facts to prove a larger point—also contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. As mentioned before, Thornton uses a few common beliefs early in the development in order to gain a commonplace for her audience to agree upon. The opposition argues that since so many domestic battery cases go unreported, it is a lost cause to help those who do not want it. But then she blows the opposition out of the water and points out that domestic violence is costly for taxpayers as we pay for cops who do respond to domestic calls, and is therefore an issue that needs to be resolved through awareness and the implementation of more safe shelters (Thornton). Everyone pays taxes, which is why we should care: because domestic violence cases take money out of our pockets.
Thornton’s most effective persuasion technique demonstrates when she alludes to the recent case in Aurora where a husband drowned his wife and then hanged himself. This image is gruesome and painful for most to even think about. It also forces the reader to feel the wrath of domestic violence and shine light on the safe haven the Women’s Crisis Center provides. She states that up to “90 percent of the homicides in the past 11 years in Douglas County have been linked to domestic violence,” which means that out of all the crimes reported, nearly all of them are related to domestic violence (Thornton). This demographic is shocking and is impetus enough for the reader to advocate for more safe centers for battered women. She mentions that suicide rates are much higher in children that are raised in households with lots of violent tendencies (Thornton). No parent wants to be responsible for the death of his or her son. The thought of someone killing themselves over conflict within the household is sickening enough to allow families to end the violence, or seek help through the Crisis Center.
Thornton first establishes a connection with her adult audience by throwing some grim statistics about children from violent households. Children are the future of our nation, and when many suffer from hyperactivity and depression because of brutality at home, everyone worries about the future of the youth. She addresses everyone directly and asks us all to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center to help end the shockingly high numbers of domestic violence that exist today. To those who disagree and feel that battered women usually do not come forward, Thornton also says that the Crisis Centers save the county $1 million in court and jail costs that could be used for other critical causes. Maybe some battered women will come forward and seek help from the Crisis Center in response to support from the general public. Thornton hopes that the next time a case of domestic brutality is reported on the news, instead of reaching for the remote, we reach out into the community to support those in need.
Thornton, Susan. "Thornton: Shelter Helps Break Cycle of Abuse." Denver Post. 6 Feb. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
Immigration in a New Light, by Alice Xu
I went to a conversation on Thursday, February 10. The topic is about immigration. The reason why I am interested in this topic is because I am an international student here in the U.S.. After I graduate I have to facing the same problem with Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, which is stay here or go back to my home country.
Froude is from England. He came to the U.S. to visit when he was young, and he also visit Denver to found out if there were anything he wanted to do there. Finally, he finished his master degree in Colorado University Boulder campus. After he got his master degree, he went to university of Denver to study Theology.
Froude said, F1 visa which is student visa only last for a specific years for a student. Therefore, after he graduate he has to have a job or get married. Froude wanted to live in LA, but he knew that should be so different from England. Then he found a job as a productor of TV shows in LA. Therefore, he got the working visa and his employer pay for the application. However, this time he has to do the whole process by himself, because nobody would tell him what to do and how to do. After several years, Froude met his wife, who is an india, but move to the U.S. when she was one year old. At that time, his visa just got expired. Therefore, he has to do something. Get marry with his girlfriend, or back to England. He knew marriage is a serious problem, so he cannot get marry because of the visa. Therefore, he began to work in different company as different worker, just for the working visa.
On 2007, he finally married his girlfriend, and he felt that was a right decision. After he got married, he needed to apply a green card. However, he really did not know how to apply it. So he found a lot websites about how to apply green card, but those won’t help. Then he made an appointment with NSCIS. This appointment worth three thousands dollars just for 10 years green card. Also, it was just a permanent one, so it could be take away anytime. Because the application fee is so expensive, therefore he and his wife take it very seriously. At the day that they made an appointment to apply visa, denver was snowy heavily. They thought the department should be closed at that day, but they were not sure. Therefore, they tried to catch the bus to the department. They waited for half an hour but no bus come. Then they realize everything was closed that day. However, they still afraid that the NSCIS was open. Therefore, they drove their small car in dangerous situation to apply their green card. When they arrived, there were a lot people standing outside the building. They realized that the departement also closed that day. He said, everyone knew that the place should be closed, but they just wanted to make sure their money was still useful for the appointment.
Froude’s speech made the listener felt that to stay in a foreign country is a very hard thing in the life. His experience made me felt that I still have a rough future need to overcome. Now is just a beginning.
The Last Lecture of Life and Lessons, by Cailie Murphy
Professor Randy Pausch from Carnegie Mellon University lectured to 400 people. This last lecture of his was held on September 18th, 2007, and was called, “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”. This lecture informed his audience about his pancreatic cancer that is taking over his pancreas and that he will die in just a matter of short months. Randy presented himself as someone invincible and healthy as can be. He stood confident, energetic, cheerful, and hilarious.
As Randy begins his lecture, he has the audience laughing and engaged. He walks on the stage with complete confidence. He does not seem unhealthy but rather strong. His humor is presented from the moment he walks on to the stage. He first shows the cat scans of the ten tumors that are in his tumor, and that he is living his last three to six healthy months left of life. Most people would try to get sympathy from the audience but Randy says that even though he has the best doctors trying to treat him, he can’t change the fact that he has pancreatic cancer. He just has to respond to it and that in life no one can change the cards they are dealt. He then explains to the audience that he is not depressed, not in denial, but just aware with everything that is happening to his body and life. He has three beautiful young children and a loving spouse; so he is happy with the life he is able to live at this moment in time. Randy engages the audience right from the start by talking about his good health. Randy explains how he is probably in better health and stays in better shape then most of the audience. He then shows the audience by making a joke following with about ten pushups he does on stage. Not only does he do regular pushups but pushups with only one hand as well as claps in between each one. During this section of the lecture the audience is laughing extremely loud. Randy knows how to get the audience involved by his actions and humor. After he talked a little bit about his life and family, he points out the main topics of his lecture. He is not giving this lecture to talk about cancer, wife and dreams, or spirituality and religion because it already consumes the majority of his life and he will not be able to give the lecture without crying.
Randy’s majority of the lecture went through his six childhood dreams, how to enable the dreams of others, and lessons learned in life. The dreams consisted of; being in zero gravity, play in an NFL football league, be an author in the world book encyclopedia, meeting captain Kirk, winning a stuffed animal, and being an imagineer. He takes about ten minutes for each of these dreams, and pictures and stories of each of them happening in his life. As he talks there is a picture slide show behind him, this enables the audience to see the memories that he is referring too, and allows them to feel apart of his past. Randy achieved every one of his childhood dreams throughout his life, and made sure he did so once he was diagnosed.
During his entire lecture, Randy is constantly moving his hands and brings the audience into his stories by talking in dialogue form between his friends and coworkers. It felt as though he was making sure the audience felt every emotion he went through during his experiences. Another way Randy shows emotion and engages the audience is by changing his tone of voice between the dialogues of all the different people he refers to in his stories. Each person he acts as he changes his voice as well as his mannerisms. This then turns to the audience hysterically laughing and wanting to hear more.
Randy was a teacher at Carnegie Mellon for a Building Virtual Worlds class. He taught this class after experiencing many opportunities in the imagineering job force. This class was all group projects on creating spectacular projects every two weeks of the semester. Randy loved teaching and that his favorite moment about teaching is the bonding the students were able to create with one another. Randy states, “I can’t tell you before hand, but right before they present it I can tell you if the world’s good just by the body language. If they’re standing close to each other, the world is good”. This statement explains that Randy believes that when people bond just by doing a simple project, the world is in a good place and people support each other.
The final section of Randy’s lecture focus on the lessons he has learned. After each one of the lessons he uses his own experiences as examples. One life lesson is to never give up. As Randy was applying for college he got wait listed to Brown University. This was his dream school so every day he would call the admissions office and beg to be let in. This relentlessness gave him his acceptance to Brown and an amazing education. Another lesson he describes is to apologize when you screw up and to focus on other people instead of yourself. He then goes on to explain that the day before the lecture was his wife’s birthday and the focus today was on himself. His wife then comes onto the stage and Randy asks the audience to sing her happy birthday as a cake and a candle is put onto the stage. Even though this lecture is one of his biggest moments, Randy gave the attention to his wife to the entire audience. Randy’s final point talks about the “head fake,” which explains that life is not about achieving dreams, it is about how to lead a good life. By leading life the right way, karma will take care of everything, and the dreams will then appear.
Once Randy said, “Goodnight,” to the audience, they applauded with a standing ovation for 90 seconds. Then after a final speaker finished the lecture, the audience stood for another standing ovation. Randy had all eyes on him for his entire hour and fifteen minute lecture. He was respected by all 400 people in the room and the people he referred to in his speech. Randy gave life lessons, told touching stories, and proved to the world that even though he will be dead in a matter of months, life is a privilege and live like every day is the last. The end can come suddenly, and so have fun and do not regret anything but learn. Randy’s last lecture was extremely powerful and millions of viewers learned from his words.
Denver Mayoral Candidates Gather to Discuss the Educational System
This week a cut to the public school system was proposed by the governor along with other attempts to balance the budget through 2012. With public school funding hovering around 30% of the overall budget, its no surprise to hear that cuts are coming. Along with other concerns, such as merit pay and forming more after school programs, there is now 350 million more reasons why education funding should be the talk of the town.
Mayoral candidates are gearing up for many debates as the race to be Denver’s next Mayor heats up. High on the list of topics are concerns regarding the quality of the Denver Public School system and proposed reductions to DPS funding. Two issues the new Mayor will definitely be dealing with in the coming years.
On Friday, February 16, KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) hosted the Denver Mayoral Candidates Forum on Education at Riscel High School in Denver to discuss the topic of education in the city. Seven candidates running for Mayor were in attendance as well as the President of the Denver Public Schools Board of Education, Dr. Nate Easley and Executive Director of KIPP, Rebecca Holmes. The event was set to start at 8am and as people started making their way in, it was apparent that the interest to hear positions regarding education was important to students, teachers and parents that made up the audience. The stage was set for the event to begin with 4 tables to seat the candidates and one table for the moderators.
Rebecca Holmes took the microphone around 8:15 to start the event with a quick introduction and on overview of the KIPP programs. Explaining that KIPP is a network of free open-enrollment college preparatory public schools in under-resources communities throughout the United States and offers service in 3 locations in and around the city. Holmes gave a quick introduction to the two moderators and mayoral candidates in attendance before stepping off stage.
The moderators began the discussion with an explanation of the rules and process for the debate. To get things started each candidate was given one minute for a brief overview of his or her background and to state why education was important to him or her. This gave the audience an opportunity to get a sense for who was on stage and hear their motivations to improve the educational system in Denver.
The forum was setup so that the candidates were selected at random and could pass on a question once. The range of questions started out lightly which allowed each candidate to establish a general ethos. Questions such as “when was the last time you visited a school, met with parents and/or teachers?” eventually leading up to the harder questions that tested their knowledge of the current issues and statistics. The forum overall had a wide spectrum of topics which left me with a more rounded sense of each person on stage.
Three candidates stood out amongst the rest for three different reasons. As candidates running for Mayor, one would expect a sense of preparedness, being clear and precise and appealing to the audience. Surprisingly, I took away mixed feelings about the attention given by some of the candidates on stage. Some where there showing genuine interest and others seemed to be there just because the others joined the forum.
James Mejia stood out amongst the rest. He was well prepared and was very precise with his answers, not once repeating himself. Mr. Mejia was one of the few in a suit and tie and always stood up when giving his answers. His demeanor on stage created a sense of respect for to his audience and enforced his attention to the subject. I found myself wondering way every candidate wasn’t showing this level of engagement. Mejia presented himself very well and connected with the audience every time he spoke, giving exact answers to every question.
Ken Simpson took a very different approach. He was very casual in his appearance and responses. His persona was extremely casual for the event, dressed in a flannel shirt and jeans. He quickly establishes a connection with the students with his introduction and directs all of his answers towards them, and often received applause from those in the audience. As the other candidates talked about school principals and teacher performance, Ken talked about better school environments and cleaner bathrooms. Although very genuine, I feel his approach would have been better served if the audience were filled with more students.
Thomas Wolf was the least prepared and seemed the most out of place. Even though Thomas was well dressed and was quick to speak, he came across as arrogant and loud. He was the only candidate to pass on a question and wasn’t able to answer many of the speed round questions regarding the status quo of the system today. Thomas has a background of an investment banker and his responses were structured as if to close a deal which I feel was too much for the audience in the auditorium. His ethos was not servicing his appeal to be the next Mayor of Denver.
To finish up the forum each candidate gave a closing remark and most followed up on answers they gave throughout the discussion. Even though there was a wide range of questions, I feel there wasn’t enough time set aside to answer the questions effectively. It would have been to the benefit of everyone if there were less questions and more focused questions around one or two issues within the system. That way the candidates would’ve had more time to set the stage and strengthen any arguments.
Barbara Bush's Wellesley College Address, by Dish Harris
It’s June 1, 1990 and a white haired woman in black graduation robes stands on a podium in front of those related to the Class of 1990. She wears purple sashes over her robes, which she will later explain is the color of the Class of 1990. It’s the commencement exercises at Wellesley College. This small all women’s liberal arts college is located in Wellesley, Massachusetts. The girls who attend Wellesley are of the most intelligent and unique women around. The crowd cheers as the women attempts to bring them to order to begin her remarks. This woman is Barbara Bush, wife of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States, and she is addressing the faculty, staff, board, and students of Wellesley.
Bush opens her speech, like any would, by acknowledging the many different groups in the audience and finishes her opening remarks by acknowledging the guests of honor, the class of 1990. This makes it very clear who her audience is and also sets the stage for the kinds of topics that she is going to talk about. Obviously for this speech, she has geared her ideas towards the women graduating from Wellesley and going out into the world to start their lives. She does an excellent job of being aware of her audience. Not only does she focus on the fact that these women are graduates moving on to a new phase in their lives, but also that they are all women. This fact has a huge impact on the topics she chooses. After acknowledging everyone there, she flatters Wellesley by speaking very highly of it and talking about how it is “not just an institution but an idea”. These comments show her audience that she is well versed in their interests and makes her seem genuinely interested in them and what they want to hear. This helps her to gain credibility with her audience and also opens her up and shows that she legitimately knows what she is talking about.
Bush is also an incredible storyteller and she uses this to her advantage in the speech. She could take the “stand on the stage and lecture about what these women should do to make their dreams come true” path but instead she uses stories and experiences to help her instill the wisdom she hopes to instill in the graduates in the Class of 1990. One of the stories she uses is about a friend’s husband. He is talking about babysitting and his wife tells him that when it is your own kids it isn’t called babysitting. These kinds of stories and jokes bring across the strong message she wants to but also keeps her audience engaged and entertained.
Hand in hand with her storytelling is her humor. This is an exciting time in these women’s’ lives and so again she does not want to stand and lecture them, which would bore them to tears. The humor lightens the mood from all the philosophies she is throwing at them. Within her humor, she also uses examples that the women can relate to. For example, she uses a quote from the movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”. The quote has to do with the fact that life is fast paced and so you must stop and look around every so often or you will miss the joys of life. Not only is this something that is said to everyone when their life is changing but it is from a movie that was current at the time. Because it was so popular with this era, a majority of her audience had seen the film and could relate to it. With the Ferris Bueller example she also uses humor. After her quote when the audience is finished clapping, she jokes that they clapped more for Ferris than for George, her husband. This kind of humor keeps the tempo of the speech upbeat. The fact that she is relatable and humorous helps to bring meaning to her speech in relation to these women.
Bush does an excellent job using the tools of speech giving that she has in conjunction with one another to help give her speech power and meaning. She never uses one specific technique. She always tries to use all the tools she has to engage her audience and incorporate meaning into her speech as well as entertainment.
Immigration Panel Sheds New Outlook on the West, by Tanner Krall
So what does Dr. De La Torre feel the people of Mexico and Cuba and all Central America have the right to? Hundreds of years ago, The United States went to war with Mexico, or what is now the western portion of the United States that once was Mexico. After the war, The Unites States seized huge portions of Mexican land, perhaps some of the most plentiful land in the whole country. Not only did the U.S. expose them for their resources, but also for cheap labor. Much of the Unites States wealth and power comes from the west in areas such as California where gold was discovered, Texas for oil, and the entire west coast used for shipping. Without these resources, the U.S. never would have been so successful, Dr. De La Torre is here to ensure that this wealth is restored to its rightful people.
Being an immigrant from Cuba, Dr. De La Torre, is lucky to be here in the United States. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was allowed to leave Cuba and come to America without too much hassle. Whether he is happy to have lived here for nearly 50 years is hard to tell given that he speaks of America like a villain. Perhaps a better word to describe his feelings would be a bully, someone who is stronger and more powerful who takes what they want. His tone is not angry, but strong, he is upset about something. What he is upset about, in addition to how the U.S. took the land from Mexico many years ago, is how immigration has turned into a way to kill off those crossing the border. He is upset about the 13-year-old girl who died of thirst and hunger in the Arizona desert trying to make it to America. He is upset about the women who are raped on their way to America and the over 12,000 immigrants who die in both the U.S. and Mexico.
Dr. De La Torre is on a mission, a mission to ensure the safe passage of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. In order to complete this task, he has spent weeks at a time in the very same deserts where these thousands of people die every year. With the help of a team of volunteers, they go into the desert of Arizona and walk the very same trails immigrants from Mexico walk every year. Carrying food and water, the aid immigrants trying to make it to America. Often times they encounter the unfortunate, one of those 12,000 who didn’t quite make it and perish in the sun. And if the sun doesn’t kill you, then the snakes, mountain lions, and other various creatures will. What he asks is “How is it that people are dying in the richest country in the world, the richest country in the world?” As the crowd sits in silent for s moment he passes around a picture of a little girl, the same girl who at the age of 13 died trying to come to America looking for a better life.
Although he is not a Mexican immigrant himself, he does fight for the people of Mexico as well as all people of Central America. He not only fights to keep them alive as they roam the desert, but he fights for what he feels is fair. He doesn’t directly say it, but it is easy to pick up on what he is trying to say. That is that, if the U.S. took all this land from the Mexican people years ago, and they export them for their cheap labor, don’t they deserve some of that wealth? The reason Mexico is so poor is because the U.S. took all their resources to gain its own wealth and power. No wonder much of Mexico lives in poverty and its people die trying to make it to America. In Dr. De La Torres’ mind, when Mexican people immigrate back to the U.S. they are actually coming home.
The title of the segment was “Immigration In a New Light,” which is suiting because that is how I saw it. Whether good or bad, after attending the seminar I learned how one becomes a U.S. citizen, along with how one loses all their land, resources, and power to another country. The seminar was very educational on how difficult it is to become a citizen of this country, both legally and illegally. Dr. De La Torre is an ambitious man who is a savior to people south of the border, whether he is wrong or not is up to you.
DU Graduate Addresses Tragedy and Changes To Come, by Sophie Amster
A Memorable Speech Lost in Time, by Morgan Behr
When deciding a rhetorical piece to analyze, I chose ”Message to the Grass Roots” by Malcolm X. “Message to the Grass Roots” happened on November 9 and 10, 1963 at the two-day Grass Roots Northern Negro Leadership Conference at the King Solomon Baptist Church in Detroit. The conference was held at the same time that the Detroit Council for Human Rights held a Northern Negro Leadership Conference in Detroit because the Detroit Council for Human Rights sought to exclude Black Nationalists and Freedom Now Party advocates from that rally. I chose this speech because it gave an in-depth perspective to the radical side of the Civil Rights Movement.
Therefore, this particular rhetorical act intrigued me. Malcolm X’s stance on action in the Civil Rights Movement was that of violent protest, radically different than Martin Luther King JR.’s stance of non-violent civil disobedience. Malcolm X pointed out, “Our society, but more importantly America as a whole has a very serious problem.” The serious problem that he pointed out is that black people are not wanted by white society. By persuading his audience that there was an urgent need for social change and to no longer have a non-violent stance, Malcolm X encouraged them to turn and fight. He was able to persuade the black community to start a revolution against their “common enemy.” He felt strong action may be his only option left. Thus, he addressed the audience of non-Muslim African Americans as instigators of change, able to empower the Civil Rights movement and pave the way towards racial justice.
Consequently, because Malcolm X represented the frustration of the community at that time through his speech, it became one of the most significant speeches given in the time of the Civil Rights movement. Within the speech his purpose is to convince the black community to come together, yet through his extremist views on the use of violence, he is essentially alienating many of the people in the black community. Also through his use of violent examples in his speech it tells us that the Civil Rights movement struggle in America had reached its low point. This is the case because Martin Luther King Jr. failed to desegregate Birmingham in the weeks before the speech was given. Also the Southern Leadership conference was in financial trouble and was not taking any action. This made the Negros of the south frustrated with the non-violent approach of the Civil rights movement and they decided to take their own course of action. These events helped Malcolm X gain support for his violent approach to the Civil Rights Movement. He showed his audience through his forceful tone and motivational words that he would do anything to gain rights as an American citizen.
He motivated his audience by telling them “revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that get in its way. . . No you need a revolution.” His use of “bloody” and “hostile” shows his violent approach. In his speech, Malcolm X motivated his audience further when he encouraged his audience to stand up for their rights through black revolution. Malcolm X expressed his encouragement when he said,“ When you study the historic nature of revolutions . . . You may devise another program, you may change your goal and you may change your mind.” Malcolm X is responding to the non-violent approach of other activists within the group by saying that when you look at a revolution, a revolution has never been a revolution without violence. He is using specific rhetorical word choices invoke motivation within his audience.
In his speech “Message to the Grassroots” he also used a forceful tone when speaking to his audience. He showed his forceful tone when he said in his speech “ So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you . . . there’s no such thing as a non-violent revolution.” In the sound bite of speech at this point he pauses and then raises his voice. This change is voice emphasizes his rhetorical choice of a forceful tone.
In the end his speech became memorable because he created a connection to the audience. He connected to the audience through his appeal to pathos, which in turn helped his appeal to ethos. He gave is speech to almost all black and non-Muslim, so he could not create a connection with the audience on a religious level. Instead, he connected to his audience by appealing to their feeling of frustration through his use of select words. An example of his use of select words is when he said, “They control you, but they never incited you or excited you. They control you, they contain you, they keep you on the plantation.” Malcolm X is telling his audience that the society is doing just enough for the Civil Rights Movement to keep them quiet, but not really fixing anything. Therefore, he uses his personal rhetorical connection to the situation to invoke pathos within his audience. In turn he creates a connection with his audience by showing that they are one community. He show this when he says, “ we have a common oppressor, a common exploiter and a common discriminator, but once we all realize that we have a common enemy, then we unite- on the basis of what we have in common.” Malcolm X is showing the audience that they are community who share the same beliefs and need to come together as one. By showing this he uses rhetoric situations to invoke ethos within the audience. These were often a tactic used by many speakers in the Civil Rights movement, including Martin Luther King Jr.
Malcolm X’s “Message to the Grass Roots” had a lasting and meaningful effect on Civil Rights movement. In his speech he gave us an in-depth view to the radical side of the Civil Rights Movement. Through the motivational words and forceful tone in his speech he showed us his rhetorical use of ethos and pathos. He then demonstrated that it motivated the audience to make a change and start a revolution. The speech then effectively responded to the situation surrounding it by giving the audience hope that even with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in trouble, they can still continue on the path towards racial justice. Most importantly, through his speech he was trying to get people to take more immediate action.
Marc Brandenburg's "Deutsch-Amerikanishe Freundschaft," by Mike Kieper
The Denver Art Museum hosted Marc Brandenburg’s first solo exhibition in the United States, which included around 30 drawings from numerous private European collections. Brandenburg’s drawings resemble photographic-negatives, in which black and white tones are reversed. The exhibition is subtitled “Deutch-Amerikanishe Freundschaft,” which translates to “German-American Friendship” in English. Perception, truth, and reality are the major themes explored by Brandenburg as he links personal experiences to politics and popular culture in his drawings.
Brandenburg’s use of black and white tones resemble snapshots that combine aspects of realism and transfiguration in attempt to give permanence to a contemporary view of reality. The viewer feels as though they are looking at the photographic negatives of the artist’s life, as the brighter tones seem to leap out toward the audience while the darker tones project a distance between the intense moments captured on the white paper. This style of drawing gives the artist an ethos appeal as the audience associates the artist with real photography despite the abstractions of the artist.
There is an evident kairos appeal that is felt in Brandenburg’s works due to his style of drawing and realistic scenes which incorporate elements of event culture. Public demonstrators, fairgrounds, and avid football fans are just a few of the inhabitants of this bizarre depiction of reality. The contemporary drawings of popular culture force the viewer to question whether the subtle abstractions in the drawings are in fact realistic or not.
The audience, unlike most rhetorical events, is widespread and undefined as anyone familiar with popular culture can see the parallels drawn between our world and the world that is created in graphite. Almost any viewer can recognize some aspect included in Brandenburg’s drawings, such as iconic figures like the late Michael Jackson, and therefore relate these components to their view of the world as it appears in contrast to what is depicted the art.
The Marc Brandenburg exhibit is only on display in Denver until February 20th, 2011. The resemblance of his works to that of photographic negatives embodies the personae that he tries to project. His drawings capture intense moments in which the audience is forced to separate the realistic elements from the abstract and as a result, question the nature of our culture as a whole. The ideals of perception, truth, and reality are unified in the detailed white and black tones that portray Brandenburg’s world.
The Rhetoric of Immigration, by George Cooper
Upon entering the nondescript room tucked away somewhere behind Jazzman’s Café, I noticed the presence of the presenters immediately. I also noticed their clear differences. Richard Froude was a younger man with a prominent English accent. Dr. Miguel De La Torre was an older man with a heavy Spanish accent. Their foreign accents naturally helped build ethos before the formal discussion even began because it was clear that they themselves had gone through the immigration process.
Froude began the discussion by recounting his story of immigration from London. He discussed the difficulties he faced even as someone who immigrated with financial stability, no language barrier and a similar cultural background. As Froude could claim none of these as obstacles to overcome, his discussion relied heavily on an appeal to logos. Froude discussed the antiquated immigration system of “the wealthiest nation in the world” and the numerous forms, procedures and the sheer confusion that he had to overcome. However, he was always certain to remind the audience every so often that what he faced as a native speaker can’t even come close to the challenges that those with language barriers must overcome. He spent most of his allotted time discussing the exasperating process and its intricacies such as having to complete certain requirements by a certain time in order to avoid having to start the entire process over again. This worked well as I could sense that Mr. Froude’s frustration was becoming the audience’s frustration as he described filling out what seemed like each and every document and form that Homeland Security has every produced.
Dr. Miguel De La Torre was the second presenter. He spent hardly any time discussing his expedited immigration process from Cuba and instead chose to devote most of his presentation to the ethical issues surrounding our country’s immigration policies. He expertly crafted a presentation that appealed to ethos, logos and pathos. As the author of many books discussing the realities of our broken immigration system, De La Torre came with a lot of ethos and brought up many good points that appealed to an audience largely filled with those who had limited knowledge on immigration. First, he set the stage by filling us in on what led to today’s complex immigration problem. He took us back to the Polk era when the United States took much of Mexico’s land and resources. Using logos, De La Torre simplified the issue by stating “If you build a road into my country to take my resources, I’m going to follow that road to chase what is rightfully mine.” Such an appeal seemed to be highly effective as even those who know nothing about our nation’s immigration problem could follow the simple yet sound logic De La Torre used in his presentation.
Continuing on with his presentation, De La Torre primarily stayed away from the present day politics of the immigration debate and instead went on to appeal to pathos. This was a very clever move in that by avoiding politics he was able to prevent alienating anyone whose political opinions may vary from his. He discussed the “Deterrent Factor” and how our government has pushed Mexican immigrants to cross in the treacherous mountain ranges and deserts along the southern border, knowing that many would die and thus, deter others from attempting to cross illegally. De La Torre stated that this is the first time since the Jim Crow era in the south that our government has essentially condoned a policy in which some would inevitably die as a result. Clearly appealing to pathos, De La Torre paused, opened his wallet, and displayed a photo of a 13-year-old girl who died after breaking her ankle in the desert while trying to cross the border with her family. He solemnly stated, “There is something morally wrong when a 13 year old girl dies of thirst and hunger in the richest nation in the world.” As the photo was passed around, there was no doubt in my mind that this part of De La Torre’s presentation resonated heavily in the hearts of the audience. After all, what kind of a human being doesn’t share sympathy with most innocent victims of a fatal problem?
Transitioning back to an appeal to logos, De La Torre ended his presentation by dispelling many myths associated with immigration: Immigrants use our public services for free, take American jobs, etc…. By transitioning back and forth between logos and pathos, De La Torre effectively confronted many elements of the complex immigration debate while still mostly shying away from the politics of the issue.
While both De La Torre and Froude effectively presented a call to action of sorts on reforming immigration policy, neither of their presentations was completely flawless. Froude came across as whiney at points as he complained about the extensive forms, fees and background checks he had to deal with as he tried to complete the immigration process. This was a poor attempt at pathos and I believe it somewhat weakened his appeal to logos. In talking to fellow attendees after the lecture, the general consensus was that it should be expected that prospective immigrants have to deal with such procedural hurdles because immigration is a complex undertaking. De La Torre’s presentation could have been stronger as well. Although facing limited time, De La Torre failed to suggest immigration policy changes and instead only presented us with a call to action. When asked by a member of the audience what the US must do to correct the insufficient system, De La Torre seemed to take the easy way out by plainly responding, “This problem has taken over 100 years to create and will take over 100 years to solve.” Also, De La Torre never once recognized the fact that America can be a great land of opportunity and instead chose to speak of the racism he sometimes faces.
Overall, De La Torre and Froude did a good job of sharing their compelling perspectives on immigrating to America. Their respective passions could be felt by the audience through the utilization of appeals to ethos, pathos and logos. From what I could tell, most who attended the forum left with a greater sense that something has to be done about our broken immigration system.
Gay Marriage and the Catholic Chuch, by Liam Flannagan
The first reading was from Sirach 15:15-20, the responsorial psalm was Psalm 119, the second reading was 1st Corinthians 2:6-10 and the Gospel reading was Matthew 5:17-37. Initially, all of these readings appear innocent; they are merely speaking to the population about obeying God’s word, being faithful to the commandments and avoiding sin. However, considering the weekend which this occurs, the one before the Hallmark Holiday (since no one seems to remember it is a Saint’s day) of Valentine’s Day, the majority of theses passages can be, and frequently are, interpreted in a more political manner.
The homily is the moment when the priest can express his interpretation of the gospel readings as well as its place within the context of the first and second readings. Generally, priests use this time and speaking opportunity as a mechanism to preach Catholic teaching (the purpose for which it was originally designed) and sometimes to convey a set of political beliefs.
Many church-goers, especially the more moderate set in the Catholic faith, have a tendency to dislike when the priest uses his position to push a political agenda. Many people believe that the church is a place to grow closer to God, not a place to push the political system and the way a “good Catholic” should vote.
The father began by citing Sirach, saying, “If you choose to keep the commandments, they shall save you. To none does God give license to sin.” He emphasized this idea of free will within the Catholic Church, but stressed that in order to get to heaven, one must freely choose to do God’s will.
He then moved onto the second reading where he quoted, “We speak a wisdom to those who are mature, not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away.” At this point, the priest moved away from the lectern and began pacing the ground in front of the altar. He moved his hands and spoke with conviction, as if his words were irrefutable. He was preaching to a crowd of Catholics who are taught to stay quiet throughout mass, not utter a word and the idea of calling the priest out is so ludicrous that no one even says it is something unacceptable because everyone just knows, you will probably go to hell for doing such a thing.
And then he quoted the gospel, “Remember what Jesus said at the beginning of our gospel reading today, ‘Whoever breaks the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven!’ So no matter what people in their ivory towers say, the truth is that God counts all of his rules! To include even what people believe to be a small and minute detail of the bible.
He went on to say that in order to get into heaven, one must respect all life; therefore, physically abusing or verbally harassing gay people is inexcusable. This did not mean, however, that we must teach our children that it is “okay to be gay” because then we will suffer for our teachings as much as the children will suffer for their sins.
People in a church have a tendency to listen to the priest and remain throughout the entire mass, regardless of what he might have said. At this particular mass, many people rose up near the end of his homily and made their way to the door. This is generally the passive way of stating that they did not agree with the message of the priest’s homily. This, however, is about the only chance for open disagreement on has inside a mass.
The priest stands above the congregation, he has a microphone, and all eyes are on him. Through the law of papal succession, he has received his spiritual authority directly from Jesus Christ. Most people within the church would believe that the human being is flawed, meaning that the priest can make mistakes, but his message is not because it is taught throughout the church, all the way back to Rome, then all the way to Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Despite disagreement some may or may not have held towards his homily, only a select few left the church.
The mass setting enables a priest to convey his point without any opposition. While this is important to being able to preach the meaning of a gospel from the point of view of the Catholic Church, occasionally the priest will let his personally biases in the way and preach what he thinks a gospel means rather than the official teaching of the church. This too is important because the gospels are meant to be catered to a group of people in a certain place rather than one interpretation across the globe; this increases a person’s ability to relate with the gospel. But when the priest uses his power to preach a political position, he is abusing that power because he is no longer preaching the message of the gospel which is love but rather preaching a political agenda.
Activist Judges on Same-Sex Marriage, by Josh Goetz
opinion on the topic.
The mood of the lecture was developed through the rhetorical situation and the physical features that were present. Before the presentation the lights were dimmed and each person in the audience introduced themselves and their experience. The audience was then set as an educated group that Barclay was expected to woo. The room was very dark and the audience sent mixed messages. One woman was eating her lunch while he presented so in between his points crunching was heard. Other people in the audience were nodding after his points and occasionally would shoot a dirty look over to the oblivious woman eating. Barclay himself was wearing a suit as other men in the audience. He was clean cut and wearing a khaki colored suit and a dark red tie. The way he was dressed showed that he took this presentation seriously. After Barclay was finished with his PowerPoint he opened the floor up to questions. One man asked Barclay to further explain a theory using a theory that he had presented using the state of California as an example. Before the man had even finished his question Barclay was walking towards his computer and changing slides on the PowerPoint. His insincere actions showed disrespect to the man who he had been trying to convince. The woman finished her lunch and asked a question regarding a local issue and offered a way that she thought would be fitting to move the issue forward; he once again cut her off and blatantly denied her idea and substituted it with his own opinion. After his reaction to the two questions being posed, the audience seemed more hesitant to ask questions.
Barclay appealed to the ethos of the audience by his seeming professional and experience on the subject. The introduction of Barclay from a representative from the University of Denver and a little bit of background information tried to ease the audience into trusting him as a valid source. At the start of Barclay’s presentation he passed out a fifteen page article that he had written reporting on all the relevant cases on this topic. He said that he would be able to answer any questions on any particular event after his presentation. The forty five minute speech earned nods and questions from the audience on both specific examples and general theories. Barclay’s proposed that there were no activist judges for same-sex marriage. He did not blame this on the courts but the relationship between the legislature and the courts. He challenged this relationship as jeopardizing the efficiency and the legitimacy of the law making and enforcing system. The link between these two branches enables both sides to step out of the line of fire and bounce the responsibility of decisions back and forth.
Barclay offered an array of information, statistics, and analysis of old documents and past judicial examples to support his reasoning that there are no activist judges because they tend to reflect the legislative decisions. His use of statistics and specific examples helped to develop a stronger argument. Without strong background this argument is hard to create because it is so complex. The relationship between courts and the legislature is challenging to establish without analyzing multiple past cases. Barclay’s evidence supported his claim and he was able to better sway his audience. His examples were deeply imbedded in the knowledge of the situation and they were too complicated for me to follow and understand fully. Maybe since I was not his target audience the rest of the people he was trying to convince were more able to follow his ideas and his examples. I feel like more background on the topic at the beginning of his PowerPoint would have been a good investment to appeal to a broader audience. A slide or two could have easily caught me up on the topic while not boring those who are better versed on the topic.
The rhetorical situation was established through the amount and relevance of the cases being analyzed. This debate has been alive for forty-five years, and within the last fifteen years there has been a shift in the popular initiatives. There is a large possibility of appeal to pathos in this topic. Those who support same-sex marriage are usually very strong in their opinions. This is not an issue that people take lightly from either side. The lack of pathos in Barclay’s presentation severely decreased his effectiveness and was an area where he could have been much more persuasive. His presentation was strictly based on the court decisions and legislation on the topic. He used a specific slide that had every change in policy or important court case on same-sex marriage for the last fifty years. His examples were very impressive and thought provoking on his argument, though if he was to introduce an appeal to pathos his argument would be much stronger.
The introduction to the presentation set up the speaker as a person with a high level of expertise on the subject of same-sex marriage. His level of experience did not help him to relate the information to the entire audience effectively. Barclay finished the presentation on a negative note because of the way that he responded to his audience’s concerns and interests. He came across as just presenting evidence and did not take advantage of the possibility of appeals to pathos that could have greatly strengthened his argument.
"Immigration in a New Light", by Adam Pettyes
Walking into the room, there were chairs laid out in a circular pattern; very similar to how an anonymous meeting would look. I was immediately concerned I was in the wrong place. It turned out, I wasn’t.
On February 10, 2011, I attended a presentation on immigration. The title of the event was called “Immigration in a New Light”. Giving this presentation was two immigrants who came to America for different reasons. There was also a third person that contributed as well. She introduced the two speakers and gave a short introduction of what this event was about. While walking to the location, I expected a large presentation setting. I had expected a stage and possibly a PowerPoint as well. This was the opposite of what happened. The speakers did not stand up. They were not on a stage. They were a few feet away in the same type of chair I was sitting in. Only 28 people attended this event. This type of set up had a different effect on me than a large auditorium would. I felt closer to the speakers. It was more of a personal story telling than a boring, distant feeling lecture. This was a more persuasive and effective setting.
The first speaker was Richard Froude from England. He told his story of how he came to the United States and the troubles he faced along the way. He came to the United States in 2002 to start his master’s degree in Boulder. In order to do this he needed to apply for his first of many visas. He went on to explain the struggling events that occurred while applying for all of his visas and the high prices of each. He commented on the complicity of immigrating to the United States. He explained, “I am from a place with a very similar culture and I speak the same language. I can’t imagine coming here and not being able to understand anyone and having to figure everything out by myself.” This shows that he knows what it is like to go through this, but even he can’t imagine the difficulty of navigating through these unknown situations when the language is completely foreign. Though this story was very interesting, I did not think it was very persuasive. The message was very vague. It was very descriptive, but the purpose of telling it was not made entirely clear.
The second presenter, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, did a much better job at making his position clear. Dr. La Torre is an immigrant from Cuba. He is a professor of Social Ethics at Illif School of Theology and is also the author of the book “Trails of Hope and Terror”. This alone builds his ethos. He knows what he is talking about and this gives the audience a reason to listen. Instead of talking about his personal experiences right away Dr. La Torre began by giving a brief history lesson about Mexico and Cuba. He explained that much of the United States used to be Mexico. When looked at this way, he argues that Mexican’s have a right to this land. He said that Mexican’s use the fraise, “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us.” This gives a pathetic appeal and a logistic appeal as well. Dr. La Torre attempts to create a connection between his audience and the Mexican people by explaining their situation differently than many U.S. citizens would normally hear it. Dr. La Torre mentioned NAFTA and how this operation caused farmers in Mexico to shut their farms down and caused larger farms to become rich. NAFTA is a free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Though this has allowed for easier trade between countries, it has put many Mexican farmers out of business. He used these examples to show that the United States has taken much of the wealth from the Mexican people. His message to his audience was, “what do we owe the people of Latin America?” In his mind, a portion of the wealth of this country belongs to the people of Latin America. So, immigrants who cross the Mexican border are not trespassing, they are claiming what is rightfully theirs. This was one of his major claims.
Because of Dr. La Torre’s passion, he also works with a non-profit organization whose mission is to help immigrants crossing the border. He volunteers with his youth group giving immigrants food and water. Dr. La Torre uses his experiences to create his most effective rhetorical appeal, the appeal to pathos. Dr. La Torre passed around a picture of a 13-year-old girl who died in the desert while trying to come to the U.S. She was inside the United States border when she died. Dr. La Torre says that there is “something morally wrong if a 13-year-old girl could die of thirst and hunger in the richest country in the world.” This shows the irony and also the tragic truth of events that occur inside our borders. This example sticks with many people because of the common place in our culture. No one wants to see innocent children die. Children are precious to us and many people have children of their own. Seeing the picture of the girl triggers emotional ties within each person. He begins his argument by showing this picture to get the audience on his side and then goes on to explain all of the terrible things that can happen to immigrants while traveling to their new homes. He uses more personal stories to back up his claims. This is effective and causes the audience to believe him and his judgments.
Though Dr. La Torre did a better job of expressing himself and his opinions, he did not have a solution to this problem. His entire speech was for the sole purpose of informing his audience of the problems that are occurring and to get his audience on his side. In this regard, he did a great job. I was expecting a proposal for a solution, but Dr. La Torre did make a valid point when saying that this problem has taken hundreds of years to develop and it could take about a hundred years to be resolved. With his objective of informing his audience, Dr. La Torre successfully portrayed the issues regarding immigration into the United States. This event was informative and gave different views on immigration than would normally be heard in this country. The arguments were persuasive for the most part and Dr. La Torre gave many elaborate stories and evidence for the accusations he was making. Overall, this experience was educational and interesting.
From the Smallest Seed Grows the Greatest Kingdom, by Lauren Rice
The lights went dark on Sunday night at Denver Community Church as the last chord of the guitar faded away from the worship song. As one light on the stage warmed, a empty clay pot sat lonely. The young pastor, dressed casually in kakis and a button up collared shirt walked on stage with a large bag of soil. In complete silence, with all eyes on him in full attention, the pastor poured the soil in the pot, dropped a seed in the soil, watered it, then stood and waited. He sat, starred and waited, then watered it again, then waited. What seemed like minutes past in silence, the pastor just looking at the pot sitting unchanged on the ground. The audience did not move. With a confused look on his face, the pastor picked up the bag of soil and looked at the back as if he was reading the directions. He then put the bag down, sat in a chair and watched the pot again. Time went by in still silence. Then, on the projection screen above the stage showed the Bible verse Mark 4:26-27.
“The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then and the full grain. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come…The kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown in the ground is the smallest of all seeds on earth, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches…”
The silence was finally broken. Sitting on the chair, looking directly at the pot, the pastor began to speak. Forceful yet hushed he said, “Faith is in waiting”. The pastor used the next 35 minutes speaking passionately and teaching the already believing audience. Because those in the room were believers, the pastors lesson gained instant validation as he unpacked a parable of the Bible. The Pastor on this night was a teacher, historian, philosopher, theologian, speaker, friend and family member as he unpacked God’s word for the young Denver audience to understand.
While many church services rely heavily on the ethos of the pastor and pathos of the situation, this service leaned heavily on logos. The pastor took the audience through a rational argument full of historical and literature references as well as personal stories.
The Pastors argument hinged on making the audience believe that the kingdom of Heaven was like a mustard seed, the smallest of seeds. At first thought, this seems like a paradox, comparing the smallest seed to the greatest kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven.
He began by referencing the great cedars of Lebanon. These giant cedars became the symbol of a great nation and spectacular kingdom. Not even the Great Red Wood Forest in California could compare to the majesty of these cedars. However, the pastor quickly drew the audience’s attention to Isaiah 10:34, which says, “He will cut down the thickets of the forest with an axe, and Lebanon with its majestic trees will fall”. The greatest trees in the world do not symbolize the greatest kingdom, rather the smallest seed does. While the cedars are majestic, if they are cut down once, they are done, gone, will remain a stump, and cannot regrow.
However a mustard seed, although small, is enduring. He told a personal gardening story of his when he tried to plant mustard seed just to see what would happen. What happened was that he cannot get rid of the plant and it is currently taking over his garden, no matter how hard he tries to get rid of it. For whenever the plant is uprooted, little seeds fall from the leaves and replant. So when mustard seed is uprooted, it only comes back stronger. He directed the audience to the history of the church. Whenever a group tried to eradicate the Christianity, it only grew stronger, and spread further.
"Plant the Seed." Church Service. Denver Community Church, Denver. 13 Feb. 2011. Lecture.