As Jimmy Valvano took the podium during the 1983 ESPY awards, after a forty five second applause, the crowd hushed to a unanimous silence, and something amazing took place shortly after. Jimmy V captivated the audience with his instinctual, off the cuff speech and his smooth, comforting tone. His presence was made known as he fascinated the crowd talking about how life should be taken advantage of, and the power to help other people by sacrificing a little bit of yourself is one of the most satisfying things one can do. It was on of the most legendary speeches in the history of American sports. Jimmy V dedicated his life to helping people; he was a hall of fame material coach, a mentor, and his legacy will live on and on forever.
The ESPY awards stands for Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly. In the sports world, this speech is one of the most incredibly moving and inspiring sports speeches ever given. Jimmy Valvano is a legendary college basketball coach who took the N.C. State basketball team to the 1983 NCAA Championship and won against very high odds. He won the ESPY Courage award, this award is given to someone who has stared adversity in the face, and Jimmy V certainly has. Two months after giving this speech, ten years after he won the NCAA basketball tournament and ran up and down the sideline looking for someone to hug, he died of cancer. The sports world was absolutely devastated after it’s loss of such an amazing ambassador. The impact of his speech was due to his stature in the sports world; everyone knew who he was, what he stood for, and what he was fighting against. His credibility as an amazing coach and mentor created a sense of a personal affiliation, he made the audience feel like they were a part of his family, or a group of people that he knew well enough to pour his heart out and open himself up. At the same time, he makes the audience feel at ease; joking about his illness and putting a smile on peoples faces, “I’m gonna speak for longer than anyone else has spoken tonight, I’ve got tumors all over my body, what do I care about a guy in the back holding up a sign that says thirty seconds”. This kind of playful tone lets the audience sit back, relax a little, and really listen to what he wants to say.
Jimmy Valvano addresses the crowd in a way that they can almost feel his pain and try to understand where he is coming from. That is one of the reasons it makes this speech so affective, the audience is able to relate to him because they want to help people they love who are suffering from what he is suffering from. Jimmy V gives them a way to help their loved ones and try to do something for everyone or anyone who is suffering from cancer. In his speech, he tells the audience that there are three things we all must do we all must do everyday, “number one is laugh, you should laugh everyday. Number two is think, you should spend some time in thought. And number three is you should have your emotions moved to tears, in happiness or sadness.” Jimmy Valvano is trying to tell the audience how to take full advantage of life, because no one in that room sees life from the way he now does. He sees life in a way, “you don’t know what you got till its gone”. He evokes something from the audience that causes them to feel sad, and want to help, and as an orator, that’s all you can ask for.
Throughout this speech, Jimmy V is speaking from the bottom of his heart, and when people know someone is speaking from the bottom of their heart with passion, it is one hundred percent more effective. Jimmy V is basically on his last leg, he is in his last stage of life and he announces that at the beginning of his speech. He sees life in a completely different way. He asks the audience take full advantage of what’s in front of them and cherish the time you have on this earth, because you never know when it could be taken from you.
Since his death, the Jimmy V foundation has raised over 70 million dollars for cancer research; this just goes to show what a difference people with money can create when they are convinced and driven by someone they love like Jimmy V. Jimmy Valvano is a legend. Even without life, Jimmy V continues to help people every single day because of his passion, peace of mind, and motivation. “I’ve gotta go, I’ve got one last thing and iv said it before and I’m gonna say it again, cancer can take away all my physical abilities, but it cannot touch my mind, it cannot touch my heart, and it cannot touch my soul, and those three things are gonna carry on forever”(Jimmy Valvanos, 1993 ESPY awards)
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Local Representative Urges Council to Support Bike Sharing, by JoJo Cuchiaro
A Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) board meeting was held on Friday, February 4th. The primary topic discussed in the meeting was Denver Bike Sharing. A representative, Parry W. Burnap, gave a detailed presentation on the work of the organization to the board of RAQC representatives. She did so in hopes that that the council will allow the association to include air quality alerts in their “B-cycle” media. Also, fundamentally, it is important to have big names in the community (such as the RAQC) in support of up and coming public businesses in order to gain more popularity and federal funding.
Ms. Burnap used a PowerPoint presentation and introduced a strong argument for how the organization has and will continue to better the city of Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a Colorado non-profit corporation that has been organized and will be operated to promote health, quality of life and preservation of the environment in Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a 501 (c) 3. By building and operating a comprehensive, city-wide bike sharing system, Denver Bike Sharing is offering residents and visitors an alternative form of public transportation, which is both environmentally-friendly and affordable. Denver B-cycle will complement and be integrated with the City’s overall transportation system.
Burnap emphasized what Denver Bike Sharing can do for our city. She mentioned how the system is a perfect example of urban planning at its best. The system stimulates the city’s economy, while promoting both community and sustainability. She persuaded the audience with the statement, “The City’s vision is to change the culture of transportation in Denver by implementing bike sharing, reinforcing the innovative and environmentally focused way Denver and its leadership work toward solutions to reducing obesity, lowering carbon emissions, and providing affordable transportation.” Why not help this organization, and ultimately help contribute to the bettering of our community?
Furthermore, Ms. Burnap adds to her argument that, “Public bike sharing is a personally and environmentally healthy solution that will improve our traffic congestion and showcase Denver’s recreation/health-related lifestyle.” The City has made and continues to make strides to improve the infrastructure for safe cycling. Bike sharing will support the City’s Strategic Transportation Plan and be integrated into the larger multi-modal transportation system, including buses and the light rail, which makes Denver one of the most accessible downtown areas of any city in the U.S.
At the conclusion of Ms. Burnap’s informative presentation, the board took a vote on weather to be in support of Denver Bike Sharing. The Regional Air Quality Council voted unanimously in favor of the new organization, and expressed their excitement for helping with future endeavors and cross promotions. Parry W. Burnap did an excellent job of informing her audience of the many benefits of having her organization in the City of Denver. Through rhetoric, she successfully persuaded the RAQC board to support Denver Bike Sharing. The partnership will without a doubt make a positive impact on our already wonderful community.
Ms. Burnap used a PowerPoint presentation and introduced a strong argument for how the organization has and will continue to better the city of Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a Colorado non-profit corporation that has been organized and will be operated to promote health, quality of life and preservation of the environment in Denver. Denver Bike Sharing is a 501 (c) 3. By building and operating a comprehensive, city-wide bike sharing system, Denver Bike Sharing is offering residents and visitors an alternative form of public transportation, which is both environmentally-friendly and affordable. Denver B-cycle will complement and be integrated with the City’s overall transportation system.
Burnap emphasized what Denver Bike Sharing can do for our city. She mentioned how the system is a perfect example of urban planning at its best. The system stimulates the city’s economy, while promoting both community and sustainability. She persuaded the audience with the statement, “The City’s vision is to change the culture of transportation in Denver by implementing bike sharing, reinforcing the innovative and environmentally focused way Denver and its leadership work toward solutions to reducing obesity, lowering carbon emissions, and providing affordable transportation.” Why not help this organization, and ultimately help contribute to the bettering of our community?
Furthermore, Ms. Burnap adds to her argument that, “Public bike sharing is a personally and environmentally healthy solution that will improve our traffic congestion and showcase Denver’s recreation/health-related lifestyle.” The City has made and continues to make strides to improve the infrastructure for safe cycling. Bike sharing will support the City’s Strategic Transportation Plan and be integrated into the larger multi-modal transportation system, including buses and the light rail, which makes Denver one of the most accessible downtown areas of any city in the U.S.
At the conclusion of Ms. Burnap’s informative presentation, the board took a vote on weather to be in support of Denver Bike Sharing. The Regional Air Quality Council voted unanimously in favor of the new organization, and expressed their excitement for helping with future endeavors and cross promotions. Parry W. Burnap did an excellent job of informing her audience of the many benefits of having her organization in the City of Denver. Through rhetoric, she successfully persuaded the RAQC board to support Denver Bike Sharing. The partnership will without a doubt make a positive impact on our already wonderful community.
Writer Supports Concealed Carry on University Campuses, by David Madsen
Colorado State University was one of the few University’s that allowed concealed carry weapons on campus. That was until 2009 when a ban was set on concealed weapons on campus. CSU faculty board voted 7-0 to ban concealed weapons on campus. Even with the Student Association vote of a 21-3, the ban was till set. Colorado State University (CSU) allowed students with concealed weapon permits to carry on campus in 2003. There are many arguments out there about concealed carry on school campuses. There will always be the question, if teachers were allowed to conceal carry at Columbine High School or students at Virginia Tech were allowed to conceal carry, would have there been fewer casualties? This question cannot be answered. There are schools that do allow students or faculty to conceal carry, which it is argued that the crime in those schools are low and there has not been any school shootings. The reason I am interested in this article is because I am a concealed weapon carrier, and believe that colleges and universities should allow concealed weapons on campus.
The author argues that concealed weapons do belong in schools. The author explains that the state of Utah prohibits schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that public schools allow concealed weapons on campus. Utah has not had any deaths caused by guns on a school campus, other than suicide. The author uses an example of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake in 2007. The mall was a posted gun-free zone. The shooter was taken down after killing 5 people by an off duty police officer who was carrying a firearm. If that off duty officer was not carrying a firearm, how many people could of died? Knowing that the mall was a gun-free zone makes it an easy target. The shooter knows that nobody will have a gun to stop him and he can kill unarmed people. The author uses another example in Texas passing a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons. With this law in place it eliminates shootings at the schools. This law allows the teachers to protect the students a lot more. As the author said before, knowing that the school allows teachers to carry a concealed weapon makes the school less of a target. The author provides the readers with graphs of the crime rate at CSU. In 2003, CSU allowed students with concealed weapons permits to carry concealed weapons on campus. It was expected that the crime rate would skyrocket. As the graphs show the crime rate going down significantly. Crimes such as sexual assaults and aggravated assault on campus. The author concludes that concealed weapons do belong in schools and concealed carry does not lead to Wild West shootouts and random guns fights.
On the opposing side of the argument say that having concealed weapons on campus can make a distraction for the students. What if a student gets a hold of a teacher’s weapon? Students are human, they get upset and angry. Having a concealed weapon and being angry with another student is a bad mix, its like putting gas on a fire. The opposing side says that the less weapons on campus, the less chance of a shooting to happen. The author responds to these arguments by bringing up schools in Utah and how there has not been a school shooting in any Utah schools. He also brings up the crime rate decrease at CSU after 2003 when students were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
The author tries to keep the readers for concealed carry on campuses and to bring in the readers against concealed carry on campuses. The author first starts his article with the facts of the change of concealed carry on CSU campus. As said before, the author gives two examples of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake and a law that passed in Texas that allows teachers to conceal carry. He gives these examples to help his argument. These examples show that conceal carry will lower crime in schools and could prevent a lot of deaths in a public shooting. The author also provides graphs of crime rates in CSU in his article. These graphs show the crime rate drops after allowing students to conceal carry on campus in 2003. These graphs help the author’s argument by showing the readers that allowing students to conceal carry will prevent crime on campus and could save life’s if a shooting did take place on campus. The author also states his personal experiences with carrying a firearm into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state of Utah. He states that he has carried a concealed weapon on school campuses in Utah and did not have to turn around and take his weapon back to his vehicle or break the law by carrying the weapon. He also states that he has never gone crazy and started shooting just because he is on school property.
In this article the author argues that concealed weapons should be allowed at schools. The author is a concealed weapon carrier and has carried his weapon on school property in Utah, where schools cannot ban concealed carry. The author believes that concealed carry at schools have the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself and believes that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. The author uses the schools that do allow concealed carry as an example why concealed carry is a good idea for schools. There has not been an shooting in any of the Utah schools. The author believes that if a school allows concealed carry then the chance of a shooting is lowered extremely, and if there is a shooting then the casualties will be minimal. CSU was one of the few that allowed concealed weapons on campus. In 2009, the CSU school board voted 7-0 on a ban of concealed weapons on campus. CSU first started to allow students with concealed permits to carry on campus in 2003, the crime on campus decreased over the next few years. As a concealed weapons carrier, I too believe that concealed weapons should be allowed on school campuses. It would reduce crime on campus and allows the students to protect themselves. Just because someone has a weapon does not mean they are going to start shooting everyone.
CSU Bans Concealed Carry
By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr.,
WWW.youcancarry.com
The author argues that concealed weapons do belong in schools. The author explains that the state of Utah prohibits schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that public schools allow concealed weapons on campus. Utah has not had any deaths caused by guns on a school campus, other than suicide. The author uses an example of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake in 2007. The mall was a posted gun-free zone. The shooter was taken down after killing 5 people by an off duty police officer who was carrying a firearm. If that off duty officer was not carrying a firearm, how many people could of died? Knowing that the mall was a gun-free zone makes it an easy target. The shooter knows that nobody will have a gun to stop him and he can kill unarmed people. The author uses another example in Texas passing a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons. With this law in place it eliminates shootings at the schools. This law allows the teachers to protect the students a lot more. As the author said before, knowing that the school allows teachers to carry a concealed weapon makes the school less of a target. The author provides the readers with graphs of the crime rate at CSU. In 2003, CSU allowed students with concealed weapons permits to carry concealed weapons on campus. It was expected that the crime rate would skyrocket. As the graphs show the crime rate going down significantly. Crimes such as sexual assaults and aggravated assault on campus. The author concludes that concealed weapons do belong in schools and concealed carry does not lead to Wild West shootouts and random guns fights.
On the opposing side of the argument say that having concealed weapons on campus can make a distraction for the students. What if a student gets a hold of a teacher’s weapon? Students are human, they get upset and angry. Having a concealed weapon and being angry with another student is a bad mix, its like putting gas on a fire. The opposing side says that the less weapons on campus, the less chance of a shooting to happen. The author responds to these arguments by bringing up schools in Utah and how there has not been a school shooting in any Utah schools. He also brings up the crime rate decrease at CSU after 2003 when students were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
The author tries to keep the readers for concealed carry on campuses and to bring in the readers against concealed carry on campuses. The author first starts his article with the facts of the change of concealed carry on CSU campus. As said before, the author gives two examples of a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake and a law that passed in Texas that allows teachers to conceal carry. He gives these examples to help his argument. These examples show that conceal carry will lower crime in schools and could prevent a lot of deaths in a public shooting. The author also provides graphs of crime rates in CSU in his article. These graphs show the crime rate drops after allowing students to conceal carry on campus in 2003. These graphs help the author’s argument by showing the readers that allowing students to conceal carry will prevent crime on campus and could save life’s if a shooting did take place on campus. The author also states his personal experiences with carrying a firearm into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state of Utah. He states that he has carried a concealed weapon on school campuses in Utah and did not have to turn around and take his weapon back to his vehicle or break the law by carrying the weapon. He also states that he has never gone crazy and started shooting just because he is on school property.
In this article the author argues that concealed weapons should be allowed at schools. The author is a concealed weapon carrier and has carried his weapon on school property in Utah, where schools cannot ban concealed carry. The author believes that concealed carry at schools have the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself and believes that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. The author uses the schools that do allow concealed carry as an example why concealed carry is a good idea for schools. There has not been an shooting in any of the Utah schools. The author believes that if a school allows concealed carry then the chance of a shooting is lowered extremely, and if there is a shooting then the casualties will be minimal. CSU was one of the few that allowed concealed weapons on campus. In 2009, the CSU school board voted 7-0 on a ban of concealed weapons on campus. CSU first started to allow students with concealed permits to carry on campus in 2003, the crime on campus decreased over the next few years. As a concealed weapons carrier, I too believe that concealed weapons should be allowed on school campuses. It would reduce crime on campus and allows the students to protect themselves. Just because someone has a weapon does not mean they are going to start shooting everyone.
CSU Bans Concealed Carry
By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr.,
WWW.youcancarry.com
Panel Introduces DU Students to Immigration Issues, by Shelby Dunstan
The chairs were aligned in a tight knit circle all facing one another. Every seat was filled by a curious and intrigued individual. All sat in silence, waiting for these two ‘outsiders’ to speak and share their stories. The anticipation grew. Finally, a young woman welcomed everyone. A grad student at the University of Denver, she began to introduce the controversial topic at hand. “Immigration in a new light,” was to provide others with the knowledge of immigration past what we hear beyond the news. She presents two individuals in order to show the audience the true stories of immigration. Without hesitation, she states that immigrants should be treated better in our society and be given a rightful opportunity in this country.
First, the woman presents Richard Froude. As soon as he opens his mouth, the entire audience’s ears open wider, giving their full attention to this scruffy looking man. His strong English accent automatically categorizes him as someone different, as an outsider to American society. With his arms crossed and a coffee in his hand, he begins saying “I have had a great deal of privilege as an immigrant in America.” The look on people’s faces clearly illustrates that it is odd to think of a white English speaking man as an immigrant. Froude continues to explain even though he came from a similar culture with the same language; as soon as he speaks people begin to judge him. Barley glancing up from his paper of typed notes, Richard Froude gives a brief summary of his life in America. He explains the difficulties of maintaining multiple visas and the anxiety from jumping from job to job. According to Froude, Americans do not understand the complex cycle one must endure to apply for a green card. While Froude believes he was very lucky with the opportunities he had in America, he still does not understand why such a wealthy country treats immigrants so poorly. While Froude clearly explained the difficulties living as an immigrant, the other speaker argued his point much better.
“Buenos tardes,” began Dr. Miguel De La Torre in a cheerful voice. A Professor of Social Ethics, Miguel moved to the United States from Cuba. On April 3, 1961 he was told he had 30 days to leave the country. According to the INS code, he had overstayed his tourist visa and was an undocumented immigrant. “You all probably believe I came to America looking for freedom,” he says to young eyes all set on him. He refutes his statement stating everyone is naive and wrong for thinking so. Miguel De La Torre came to America because of the United States foreign policies in Latin America. He continues to expand on his historical evidence about the country of Cuba and its recent laws. His use of hard evidence convinces his audience that he knows what he is talking about.
Unlike Richard Froude, Miguel De La Torre’s use of pathos captures his audience. He sat forward, with his elbows on his knees, engaging with each individual. Every person felt as though his story was meant for them. Starting off as energetic, his voice soon become more serious. Miguel began to talk about the issue of the border patrol. Immigrants come into this country with the intent of escaping theirs or looking for a new opportunity in ours. The people working the border patrol stated that “brown people will die crossing the border, but it will deter others from crossing later on.” This statement is brutal in the fact that they do not care if immigrants suffer and die in the process of crossing over a single border. The dead and rotten corpses will show the others that their plan of escaping did not work, and that others should not try. Miguel De La Torre emphasizes this point by taking out a wallet size picture of a child; a 14 year old girl. The young Mexican girl was an example of one to show others the consequences of her actions. She tried crossing the border, sprained her ankle, and her corpse was later found by the border patrol half eaten by coyotes. Eyes opened wide and jaws dropped. The thought of a young child dying with no purpose at all stirred the emotions in the room. He passes the photograph around the room. Actually holding the small picture of a young girl smiling before her death is absolutely heart breaking and makes one see firsthand the reality of this situation. Miguel removes his glasses and leans forward; “there is something morally wrong when a 14 year old girl dies in the richest country.”
A young student girl raises her hand; “How do we resolve this issue then?” He replies, “I have absolutely no idea.” It has taken over 100 years to make a mess out of immigration, and it will take longer to resolve. Miguel begins, “I don’t know what to think about immigration, but it is unacceptable how are dealing with it.” This single sentence sums up his entire view on the issue of immigration. He believes that no matter race, gender, or ethnicity, we should be humane to each other. Not supplying immigrants with medications in detention centers is inhumane. Deporting women and kids with no access to resources is inhumane. Making women take birth control because they will probably be raped is even more inhumane. All of these issues need to be solved in order for immigration to go anywhere.
Proven both by Richard Froude and Miguel De La Torre, immigration is a topic that is judged intently by Americans. As Americans, we view immigrants as having lower status than us and as different people overall. We do not look at their reasons behind their choice to move to the United States. Froude and Torre successfully illustrate the struggles immigrants have to overcome just to live in America. They both agree that “the richest country in the world” should be more understanding about their situations. Overall, it is argued that people should be treated with respect, no matter where they come from. With the standing ovation at the end, it shows that the people only agree.
First, the woman presents Richard Froude. As soon as he opens his mouth, the entire audience’s ears open wider, giving their full attention to this scruffy looking man. His strong English accent automatically categorizes him as someone different, as an outsider to American society. With his arms crossed and a coffee in his hand, he begins saying “I have had a great deal of privilege as an immigrant in America.” The look on people’s faces clearly illustrates that it is odd to think of a white English speaking man as an immigrant. Froude continues to explain even though he came from a similar culture with the same language; as soon as he speaks people begin to judge him. Barley glancing up from his paper of typed notes, Richard Froude gives a brief summary of his life in America. He explains the difficulties of maintaining multiple visas and the anxiety from jumping from job to job. According to Froude, Americans do not understand the complex cycle one must endure to apply for a green card. While Froude believes he was very lucky with the opportunities he had in America, he still does not understand why such a wealthy country treats immigrants so poorly. While Froude clearly explained the difficulties living as an immigrant, the other speaker argued his point much better.
“Buenos tardes,” began Dr. Miguel De La Torre in a cheerful voice. A Professor of Social Ethics, Miguel moved to the United States from Cuba. On April 3, 1961 he was told he had 30 days to leave the country. According to the INS code, he had overstayed his tourist visa and was an undocumented immigrant. “You all probably believe I came to America looking for freedom,” he says to young eyes all set on him. He refutes his statement stating everyone is naive and wrong for thinking so. Miguel De La Torre came to America because of the United States foreign policies in Latin America. He continues to expand on his historical evidence about the country of Cuba and its recent laws. His use of hard evidence convinces his audience that he knows what he is talking about.
Unlike Richard Froude, Miguel De La Torre’s use of pathos captures his audience. He sat forward, with his elbows on his knees, engaging with each individual. Every person felt as though his story was meant for them. Starting off as energetic, his voice soon become more serious. Miguel began to talk about the issue of the border patrol. Immigrants come into this country with the intent of escaping theirs or looking for a new opportunity in ours. The people working the border patrol stated that “brown people will die crossing the border, but it will deter others from crossing later on.” This statement is brutal in the fact that they do not care if immigrants suffer and die in the process of crossing over a single border. The dead and rotten corpses will show the others that their plan of escaping did not work, and that others should not try. Miguel De La Torre emphasizes this point by taking out a wallet size picture of a child; a 14 year old girl. The young Mexican girl was an example of one to show others the consequences of her actions. She tried crossing the border, sprained her ankle, and her corpse was later found by the border patrol half eaten by coyotes. Eyes opened wide and jaws dropped. The thought of a young child dying with no purpose at all stirred the emotions in the room. He passes the photograph around the room. Actually holding the small picture of a young girl smiling before her death is absolutely heart breaking and makes one see firsthand the reality of this situation. Miguel removes his glasses and leans forward; “there is something morally wrong when a 14 year old girl dies in the richest country.”
A young student girl raises her hand; “How do we resolve this issue then?” He replies, “I have absolutely no idea.” It has taken over 100 years to make a mess out of immigration, and it will take longer to resolve. Miguel begins, “I don’t know what to think about immigration, but it is unacceptable how are dealing with it.” This single sentence sums up his entire view on the issue of immigration. He believes that no matter race, gender, or ethnicity, we should be humane to each other. Not supplying immigrants with medications in detention centers is inhumane. Deporting women and kids with no access to resources is inhumane. Making women take birth control because they will probably be raped is even more inhumane. All of these issues need to be solved in order for immigration to go anywhere.
Proven both by Richard Froude and Miguel De La Torre, immigration is a topic that is judged intently by Americans. As Americans, we view immigrants as having lower status than us and as different people overall. We do not look at their reasons behind their choice to move to the United States. Froude and Torre successfully illustrate the struggles immigrants have to overcome just to live in America. They both agree that “the richest country in the world” should be more understanding about their situations. Overall, it is argued that people should be treated with respect, no matter where they come from. With the standing ovation at the end, it shows that the people only agree.
Speakers on Immigration Reveal Difficulties with U.S. System, by Chris Kyriazi
The United States of America has always had immigration as one of its cornerstones. In fact, almost every single person living in the U.S. currently was or descended from an immigrant; hence, the nickname of “Melting Pot of the World”. In recent years, the debate on how immigration should be limited has become a key component of politician’s platforms, as well as a topic of many heated debates. Dr. de la Torre and Dr. Richard Froude are two immigrants to the United States within the past 50 years. They came and shared their experiences, but more importantly they revealed how difficult it is to immigrate to this great country.
Dr. Richard Froude first came to America as a student. His original thought was that he would spend some time here and then go back to Great Britain, which is where he is originally from. His first visa, which was a F1 visa, allowed him to finish his schooling, and then when it expired in two years he had to go back to Europe. His education left him with a writing degree. He attempted to find a job that would appeal to his possession of such degree. This was difficult for him, but he finally found work and he got his visa renewed. He went through the cycle of moving from job to job, and renewed visa to renewed visa, until he found himself in L.A. He worked post-production for some movies and television shows for some time, but then his visa completely expired. He then struggled to obtain a professional visa. This would allow him a much longer stay in the United States. But unfortunately, the process needed to acquire a professional visa was very confusing and expensive, involving thousands of dollars. He finally got the visa, but by then he had a girlfriend. They discussed getting married, but they didn’t want the main reason to be assuring his stay in the U.S. Right as they finally agreed that they in fact would get married, Dr. Froude received a letter saying that he qualified for a green card. This said that he was a “permanent resident” of the United States. This is his current status. He is not allowed to vote, nor does he get Social Security or other benefits, but he still has to pay taxes. At the moment, he is trying to attain dual citizenship. He told us a story of how complicated this process is, although he is slowly pushing through it. Throughout the whole talk, it was stressed that he had no language barrier at all, and almost no cultural barrier. Becoming an immigrant to the U.S. would have been much more difficult had he had those hurdles to jump over as well. Take this into consideration, looking at how much he had to go through without the other barriers.
Dr. Richard Froude’s direct description of the immigration process into the United States is that it is a “difficult, confusing, expensive process.” In a way, that is an appeal to pathos. He is doing this by almost subconsciously asking for our pity in how difficult the route of immigration is. He explained how many people come here for a better life, and they have to do so much to achieve that. Dr. Froude also exhibits good timing for this speech. The current spectrum of immigration might not apply specifically to British immigrants, but the topic is still a much-discussed issue. He made his point well with many facts and examples. For instance, when he was discussing the high costs of getting dual citizenship, he used specific numbers. He said that it cost him $3000 just to file all of the papers, and then sometimes you might even need a lawyer to read over everything. Overall, Dr. Richard Froude was a very convincing speaker. He was not very animated, but you could tell he was passionate about this topic, as it had changed his life.
The other presenter was a man named Dr. de la Torre. He had come to the United States when he was a child from Cuba. On April 3, 1961, he was forcibly asked to leave the country. He claimed that the reason why he came to the United States in the first place is because of U.S. foreign policy. He specified that “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” So, in essence, he said that he, and all other Latin American immigrants, belongs here. He supported his argument moderately well, as he talked about the United States’ “gunboat policy” of the past century and how that affected immigrants and Latin America in general. He also discussed how, in 1994, NAFTA ruined every farmer in Mexico; within a year of NAFTA being passed, over one million farmers had lost their farms.
Dr. de la Torres had an especially strong appeal to pathos. He passed around a picture of a fourteen year old girl that died trying to cross the desert into the U.S. because she sprained her ankle. This is founded on the commonplace that (obviously) it is wrong that a young girl should die trying to have a better life. He also explained how the border patrol works mostly on the notion of “deterrent policy”. This is the idea that if you let people die trying to cross the border, it will discourage and frighten other people from trying. Dr. de la Torres’s kairos was also perfect because this is such a huge argument in modern day America.
Both Dr. Froude and Dr. de la Torres arguments were convincing, and their presentation and delivery sound. I look forward to possibly going to listen to people like them talk again.
Dr. Richard Froude first came to America as a student. His original thought was that he would spend some time here and then go back to Great Britain, which is where he is originally from. His first visa, which was a F1 visa, allowed him to finish his schooling, and then when it expired in two years he had to go back to Europe. His education left him with a writing degree. He attempted to find a job that would appeal to his possession of such degree. This was difficult for him, but he finally found work and he got his visa renewed. He went through the cycle of moving from job to job, and renewed visa to renewed visa, until he found himself in L.A. He worked post-production for some movies and television shows for some time, but then his visa completely expired. He then struggled to obtain a professional visa. This would allow him a much longer stay in the United States. But unfortunately, the process needed to acquire a professional visa was very confusing and expensive, involving thousands of dollars. He finally got the visa, but by then he had a girlfriend. They discussed getting married, but they didn’t want the main reason to be assuring his stay in the U.S. Right as they finally agreed that they in fact would get married, Dr. Froude received a letter saying that he qualified for a green card. This said that he was a “permanent resident” of the United States. This is his current status. He is not allowed to vote, nor does he get Social Security or other benefits, but he still has to pay taxes. At the moment, he is trying to attain dual citizenship. He told us a story of how complicated this process is, although he is slowly pushing through it. Throughout the whole talk, it was stressed that he had no language barrier at all, and almost no cultural barrier. Becoming an immigrant to the U.S. would have been much more difficult had he had those hurdles to jump over as well. Take this into consideration, looking at how much he had to go through without the other barriers.
Dr. Richard Froude’s direct description of the immigration process into the United States is that it is a “difficult, confusing, expensive process.” In a way, that is an appeal to pathos. He is doing this by almost subconsciously asking for our pity in how difficult the route of immigration is. He explained how many people come here for a better life, and they have to do so much to achieve that. Dr. Froude also exhibits good timing for this speech. The current spectrum of immigration might not apply specifically to British immigrants, but the topic is still a much-discussed issue. He made his point well with many facts and examples. For instance, when he was discussing the high costs of getting dual citizenship, he used specific numbers. He said that it cost him $3000 just to file all of the papers, and then sometimes you might even need a lawyer to read over everything. Overall, Dr. Richard Froude was a very convincing speaker. He was not very animated, but you could tell he was passionate about this topic, as it had changed his life.
The other presenter was a man named Dr. de la Torre. He had come to the United States when he was a child from Cuba. On April 3, 1961, he was forcibly asked to leave the country. He claimed that the reason why he came to the United States in the first place is because of U.S. foreign policy. He specified that “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” So, in essence, he said that he, and all other Latin American immigrants, belongs here. He supported his argument moderately well, as he talked about the United States’ “gunboat policy” of the past century and how that affected immigrants and Latin America in general. He also discussed how, in 1994, NAFTA ruined every farmer in Mexico; within a year of NAFTA being passed, over one million farmers had lost their farms.
Dr. de la Torres had an especially strong appeal to pathos. He passed around a picture of a fourteen year old girl that died trying to cross the desert into the U.S. because she sprained her ankle. This is founded on the commonplace that (obviously) it is wrong that a young girl should die trying to have a better life. He also explained how the border patrol works mostly on the notion of “deterrent policy”. This is the idea that if you let people die trying to cross the border, it will discourage and frighten other people from trying. Dr. de la Torres’s kairos was also perfect because this is such a huge argument in modern day America.
Both Dr. Froude and Dr. de la Torres arguments were convincing, and their presentation and delivery sound. I look forward to possibly going to listen to people like them talk again.
Condoleeza Rice Defends Post-9/11 Policies, by Monica Duffy
I chose to watch a speech made by Condoleezza Rice, one of our very own University of Denver graduates. This speech was delivered on April 8, 2004 in Washington D.C. in response to the attacks of 9/11. On September 11, 2001 one of the most horrific and devastating attacks in the history of our country was made on the United States. The terrorist group Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airline planes and proceeded to crash one of them into the Pentagon and two of them into the World Trade Center in New York. The fourth plane was heroically taken over by the passengers after it had been hijacked but devastatingly still crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Condoleezza Rice delivered this speech to make the people of our nation aware of the steps that our country was taking to retaliate against this national crisis.
This speech was successful based upon a couple key rhetorical devices used by Rice. She was able to incorporate the use of pathos, logos, and ethos as well as including many other rhetorical strategies such as extrinsic evidence and commonplaces.
One of the main reasons that Condoleezza Rice’s speech was so successful in regards to the American public would be the fact that she addressed commonplaces that applied to basically the entire nation. We, as the American people, were all deeply affected and moved by the tragedy of 9/11. This is something that affected each person in this country personally and emotionally thus creating it a commonplace. The citizens of the United States all have identical or at least extremely similar feelings of anger, shock, and patriotism. This is the commonplace that Rice tried to address. She states, “And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day. Now we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together.” Rice addresses the fact that the American people all feel the same way about the attacks on 9/11. By doing so, she unites her audience together, and is able to create a stronger message towards them. Rice’s argument that “the entire nation believes that what Al Qaeda did to our country was wrong and horrific” is an argument that is already in general circulation. Basically what this means is that Rice is stating the obvious. We know that the country feels this way about 9/11, but by Rice bringing this up in her speech, she is able to successfully add to her persuasion of her audience’s beliefs.
Condoleezza Rice was also able to use logos in her speech to successfully persuade her audience. She uses deductive reasoning to convince the people that the actions that President Bush has taken following 9/11 are the right steps to carry out. She states, “Bold and comprehensive changes are somewhat -- sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events, events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting… President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security… And he has done this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.” Rice creates this clear and concise argument by using deductive reasoning. In her first sentence, she makes a broad and general statement that could apply to any kind of situation, not necessarily this one particularly. Then, she takes the time to apply this idea to the issue that she is faced with today. By applying this general idea towards a specific situation, she is delivering her opinion in a way that makes it hard for her audience to argue or disagree with her.
Probably the most effective rhetorical device that Rice used in her speech was pathos. 9/11 was clearly an extremely emotional event for our country. By addressing the emotional side of this speech topic, Rice had an upper hand in convincing her audience of her argument. She states, “So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day.” This statement is filled with phrases that will make the American people feel either distressed, angry, or have some other extreme emotion. She appeal to the audience’s emotions on the subject by using language that is blunt and extreme. When people have emotional connections to a topic or to an idea, they have much more incentive to make that idea their own and imitate that opinion. Rice was very strategic in appealing to the audience’s emotion, especially in regards to such a strong topic such as this one.
Lastly, Rice seems like a credible source and a reliable person to listen to towards her audience. She uses extrinsic evidence to back up what she is saying. Instead of just using opinions and conjectures, she delivers her speech and fills it with facts and information for her listeners. For example, “The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.” Another example could be, “The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking.” Rice uses these facts from different departments of the government to prove that what she is saying is correct. By using extrinsic evidence, she is able to convince her audience of her argument by using actual facts instead of strictly opinion. People in general will always listen to facts over opinion. Facts are facts, so to speak. They are statements that cannot be contradicted because they are true. Whereas, contrary to facts, opinions are ideas that can be changed and argued against. So, by Rice using this extrinsic evidence to further her point, she strengthens her overall argument and ultimately wins the trust of her audience.
Condoleezza Rice creates an extremely compelling and trustworthy argument in the deliverance of her speech on the topic of 9/11. She not only uses logos and pathos to persuade her audience, but she also uses rhetorical devices such as commonplaces and extrinsic evidence to connect with her listeners and win their trust in her beliefs and opinions.
This speech was successful based upon a couple key rhetorical devices used by Rice. She was able to incorporate the use of pathos, logos, and ethos as well as including many other rhetorical strategies such as extrinsic evidence and commonplaces.
One of the main reasons that Condoleezza Rice’s speech was so successful in regards to the American public would be the fact that she addressed commonplaces that applied to basically the entire nation. We, as the American people, were all deeply affected and moved by the tragedy of 9/11. This is something that affected each person in this country personally and emotionally thus creating it a commonplace. The citizens of the United States all have identical or at least extremely similar feelings of anger, shock, and patriotism. This is the commonplace that Rice tried to address. She states, “And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day. Now we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together.” Rice addresses the fact that the American people all feel the same way about the attacks on 9/11. By doing so, she unites her audience together, and is able to create a stronger message towards them. Rice’s argument that “the entire nation believes that what Al Qaeda did to our country was wrong and horrific” is an argument that is already in general circulation. Basically what this means is that Rice is stating the obvious. We know that the country feels this way about 9/11, but by Rice bringing this up in her speech, she is able to successfully add to her persuasion of her audience’s beliefs.
Condoleezza Rice was also able to use logos in her speech to successfully persuade her audience. She uses deductive reasoning to convince the people that the actions that President Bush has taken following 9/11 are the right steps to carry out. She states, “Bold and comprehensive changes are somewhat -- sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events, events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting… President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security… And he has done this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.” Rice creates this clear and concise argument by using deductive reasoning. In her first sentence, she makes a broad and general statement that could apply to any kind of situation, not necessarily this one particularly. Then, she takes the time to apply this idea to the issue that she is faced with today. By applying this general idea towards a specific situation, she is delivering her opinion in a way that makes it hard for her audience to argue or disagree with her.
Probably the most effective rhetorical device that Rice used in her speech was pathos. 9/11 was clearly an extremely emotional event for our country. By addressing the emotional side of this speech topic, Rice had an upper hand in convincing her audience of her argument. She states, “So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. And as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger that I felt, nor will I forget the courage and resilience of the American people, nor the leadership of the President that day.” This statement is filled with phrases that will make the American people feel either distressed, angry, or have some other extreme emotion. She appeal to the audience’s emotions on the subject by using language that is blunt and extreme. When people have emotional connections to a topic or to an idea, they have much more incentive to make that idea their own and imitate that opinion. Rice was very strategic in appealing to the audience’s emotion, especially in regards to such a strong topic such as this one.
Lastly, Rice seems like a credible source and a reliable person to listen to towards her audience. She uses extrinsic evidence to back up what she is saying. Instead of just using opinions and conjectures, she delivers her speech and fills it with facts and information for her listeners. For example, “The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.” Another example could be, “The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking.” Rice uses these facts from different departments of the government to prove that what she is saying is correct. By using extrinsic evidence, she is able to convince her audience of her argument by using actual facts instead of strictly opinion. People in general will always listen to facts over opinion. Facts are facts, so to speak. They are statements that cannot be contradicted because they are true. Whereas, contrary to facts, opinions are ideas that can be changed and argued against. So, by Rice using this extrinsic evidence to further her point, she strengthens her overall argument and ultimately wins the trust of her audience.
Condoleezza Rice creates an extremely compelling and trustworthy argument in the deliverance of her speech on the topic of 9/11. She not only uses logos and pathos to persuade her audience, but she also uses rhetorical devices such as commonplaces and extrinsic evidence to connect with her listeners and win their trust in her beliefs and opinions.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Immigration in a New Light, by Sheridan Sleeper
In a recent on-campus lecture discussing immigration, Dr. Miguel De La Torre of Cuba and Richard Froude of England discussed the issues of immigration as well as the perception of immigrants in the United States. They conferred their experiences of coming to America, addressed the various generalizations made by US citizens about immigrants, and compared their stories for the audience. The audience consisted of students, professors, university staff, and others from outside the DU population. We all sat in a circle to generate a sense of community as well as to foster conversation. The environment was as first awkward however became relaxed as Dr. De La Torre and Froude spoke of their immigration.
Richard Froude spoke first of his arrival in the United States as a student. In 2002, he traveled to Boulder with a two year visa and the hopes of achieving a master’s degree. After receiving his masters, his visa expired which meant he needed another in order to work towards a graduate degree. With each new visa, his desire to live in the United States heighted tremendously. There are many differing types of visas based on conditions and time lengths. Richard began with the F1 Student Visa. The last visa he lived on was the H1B Visa which allowed him to work in Portland. Applying for a visa is an incredibly expensive and lengthy process. They can range from $50 to $2000 in addition to filling out six or seven forms. Many are exceptionally confusing which he pointed out is even more challenging for an immigrant with a language barrier. He and his current wife decided to wed not solely for the purpose of obtaining a green card, but he had few other alternatives. Richard continuously stressed how difficult this process would have been had he not spoken English and come from such comparable culture. He stated, “I have a huge respect for those people and their families,” when referring to language barriers. Richard Froude’s experience was certainly no walk through the park and he had much more in favor of his immigration than most. As spectators, we felt sympathetic to the people who are subjected to such a confusing system standing in the way of their freedom.
Froude was rhetorical in the narration of his story through his emphasis on culture variations and language differences. He stated, “I pay taxes, more than actual citizens, yet I can’t vote or claim social security.” Immigrants pay thousands of dollars to stay in the country whether gaining citizenship or reapplying for visas and green cards. His appeal to pathos in these comments forced the audience to step back and appreciate our natural citizenship as Americans. Most Americans do not understand the process and its difficulty, yet we create biases and hatred towards ethnic groups in our nation. He is persuasive simply in communicating the process of immigrating because it is strenuous and over-whelming. In addition, he depicted to the audience that he is an invisible immigrant in our community. He looks American and blends in racially until his accent is heard in conversation, then he is considered “different”.
The second speaker, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, faced a dissimilar migration. Dr. De La Torre has been a citizen of the United States for over 50 years and was granted citizenship as a child because he was a Cuban resident. During his time of exodus, Cubans were automatically granted naturalization if they were able to reach the US. He began his lecture by stating that he was here because of the US foreign policies in Latin America, not to take advantage of the systems like most Americans assume. This comment was powerful in addressing the immature stereotypes and accusations we place on immigrants in our nation. Furthermore, Dr. De La Torre established his ethos in declaring that, “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” During the Mexican-American War, the US seized hundreds of thousands of acres of land from Mexico to further establish this economic powerhouse of a nation. Our economy is extremely influential in Mexico and due to our significant agriculture industry, we export much of our crops to Mexico. This exportation drives up prices in Mexico. Consequently, the citizens of Mexico who are paid twenty dollars a week must pay US prices for goods which are contributing majorly to the poverty rates. Dr. De La Torre referred to a quote from a man he met while working on the border to support his pathos, “I make $20 a week when the pimple-faced kid over the border at the Golden Arches makes $20 in two or three hours of work.” This is a brutal truth that is unfortunate and devastating because the poverty levels are brought into realization.
One of his major points though that hit the audience hard and perturbed many people was that our country’s attempt at deterring people from crossing the border is by allowing some to pass only to die in the process. He averred, “A sprained ankle or blister is a death sentence when crossing the border.” To affirm the comment he provided an example of a thirteen-year-old girl that died crossing the border after spraining her ankle. Again to add to his pathos, Dr. De La Torre passed a picture of the girl around for everyone to view. The picture made us feel truly sad and genuinely reflect on the process of immigration. Seeing the face of a child, who should have had a long life ahead of her that died because of crossing the border, is upsetting. Personally, I felt extreme anger towards our government and border patrol at this point of the lecture. We treat immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico, like dogs, which is inappropriate for such a “great nation”.
Dr. De La Torre was much more persuasive in his arguments because he works with immigrants to help in crossing the border safely and successfully whereas Richard Froude talked only of his personal experience. Dr. De La Torre added kairos into his discussion through addressing the major concerns and controversies surrounding our current border patrol. He disagrees with Obama’s stance on border patrol and the minute men. In regards to the US soil being previously owned by Mexico, he stated, “Obama needs to realize the United States builds roads to take cheap labor and natural resources from Mexico and the immigrants are taking the roads we build to find what was taken from them”. We receive fifty to sixty percent of world’s resources for only six percent of the world’s population, according to De La Torre. These facts and astonishing numbers were eye-opening to audience because we are ill-educated about this information.
Overall, the United States is a very selfish nation and the majorities are not willing to give up what we have so others we do not know can eat. Emigrating from another country into the US seems like an impossible process that should be an equal opportunity. In order for nationalism to ensue we must realize these people from other nations are contributing members of our society that deserve respect. The challenges these people face in order to gain American freedom are grueling obstacles that we frequently disregard. Many of us take advantage of our freedom and immigration is going to continue whether we like it or not. We need to be respectful of foreigners in our country and work to tolerate these racial differences that are ever prevalent in our communities. The US is evolving and as citizens of a great nation, we must embrace diversity.
Richard Froude spoke first of his arrival in the United States as a student. In 2002, he traveled to Boulder with a two year visa and the hopes of achieving a master’s degree. After receiving his masters, his visa expired which meant he needed another in order to work towards a graduate degree. With each new visa, his desire to live in the United States heighted tremendously. There are many differing types of visas based on conditions and time lengths. Richard began with the F1 Student Visa. The last visa he lived on was the H1B Visa which allowed him to work in Portland. Applying for a visa is an incredibly expensive and lengthy process. They can range from $50 to $2000 in addition to filling out six or seven forms. Many are exceptionally confusing which he pointed out is even more challenging for an immigrant with a language barrier. He and his current wife decided to wed not solely for the purpose of obtaining a green card, but he had few other alternatives. Richard continuously stressed how difficult this process would have been had he not spoken English and come from such comparable culture. He stated, “I have a huge respect for those people and their families,” when referring to language barriers. Richard Froude’s experience was certainly no walk through the park and he had much more in favor of his immigration than most. As spectators, we felt sympathetic to the people who are subjected to such a confusing system standing in the way of their freedom.
Froude was rhetorical in the narration of his story through his emphasis on culture variations and language differences. He stated, “I pay taxes, more than actual citizens, yet I can’t vote or claim social security.” Immigrants pay thousands of dollars to stay in the country whether gaining citizenship or reapplying for visas and green cards. His appeal to pathos in these comments forced the audience to step back and appreciate our natural citizenship as Americans. Most Americans do not understand the process and its difficulty, yet we create biases and hatred towards ethnic groups in our nation. He is persuasive simply in communicating the process of immigrating because it is strenuous and over-whelming. In addition, he depicted to the audience that he is an invisible immigrant in our community. He looks American and blends in racially until his accent is heard in conversation, then he is considered “different”.
The second speaker, Dr. Miguel De La Torre, faced a dissimilar migration. Dr. De La Torre has been a citizen of the United States for over 50 years and was granted citizenship as a child because he was a Cuban resident. During his time of exodus, Cubans were automatically granted naturalization if they were able to reach the US. He began his lecture by stating that he was here because of the US foreign policies in Latin America, not to take advantage of the systems like most Americans assume. This comment was powerful in addressing the immature stereotypes and accusations we place on immigrants in our nation. Furthermore, Dr. De La Torre established his ethos in declaring that, “We didn’t cross no borders, the borders crossed us.” During the Mexican-American War, the US seized hundreds of thousands of acres of land from Mexico to further establish this economic powerhouse of a nation. Our economy is extremely influential in Mexico and due to our significant agriculture industry, we export much of our crops to Mexico. This exportation drives up prices in Mexico. Consequently, the citizens of Mexico who are paid twenty dollars a week must pay US prices for goods which are contributing majorly to the poverty rates. Dr. De La Torre referred to a quote from a man he met while working on the border to support his pathos, “I make $20 a week when the pimple-faced kid over the border at the Golden Arches makes $20 in two or three hours of work.” This is a brutal truth that is unfortunate and devastating because the poverty levels are brought into realization.
One of his major points though that hit the audience hard and perturbed many people was that our country’s attempt at deterring people from crossing the border is by allowing some to pass only to die in the process. He averred, “A sprained ankle or blister is a death sentence when crossing the border.” To affirm the comment he provided an example of a thirteen-year-old girl that died crossing the border after spraining her ankle. Again to add to his pathos, Dr. De La Torre passed a picture of the girl around for everyone to view. The picture made us feel truly sad and genuinely reflect on the process of immigration. Seeing the face of a child, who should have had a long life ahead of her that died because of crossing the border, is upsetting. Personally, I felt extreme anger towards our government and border patrol at this point of the lecture. We treat immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico, like dogs, which is inappropriate for such a “great nation”.
Dr. De La Torre was much more persuasive in his arguments because he works with immigrants to help in crossing the border safely and successfully whereas Richard Froude talked only of his personal experience. Dr. De La Torre added kairos into his discussion through addressing the major concerns and controversies surrounding our current border patrol. He disagrees with Obama’s stance on border patrol and the minute men. In regards to the US soil being previously owned by Mexico, he stated, “Obama needs to realize the United States builds roads to take cheap labor and natural resources from Mexico and the immigrants are taking the roads we build to find what was taken from them”. We receive fifty to sixty percent of world’s resources for only six percent of the world’s population, according to De La Torre. These facts and astonishing numbers were eye-opening to audience because we are ill-educated about this information.
Overall, the United States is a very selfish nation and the majorities are not willing to give up what we have so others we do not know can eat. Emigrating from another country into the US seems like an impossible process that should be an equal opportunity. In order for nationalism to ensue we must realize these people from other nations are contributing members of our society that deserve respect. The challenges these people face in order to gain American freedom are grueling obstacles that we frequently disregard. Many of us take advantage of our freedom and immigration is going to continue whether we like it or not. We need to be respectful of foreigners in our country and work to tolerate these racial differences that are ever prevalent in our communities. The US is evolving and as citizens of a great nation, we must embrace diversity.
Less Carbon Footprints, Better Environment
In the fist fall after I had been here, after a long hot summer, my friend told me, it would be snow in October. However, the snow was not begun until November. As we all know recently the global warming changed the climate obviously. The snow season came shorter and the summer turned to be longer is an obvious sign of global warming. What’s cause the global warming? “Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up.” Also, these carbon dioxides and air pollution are named greenhouse gases. Carbon footprints measure how much carbon dioxide we produce in daily life. To decrease carbon footprints, there are two important points, reduce and recycle.
Matthias mentions that more carbon dioxide can increase the growth of the plant. We would have more food. This is because the plants need carbon dioxide to grow. “With free airborne plant fertilizer and longer growing seasons, food production will skyrocket.” Also we can suffer a shorter cold days during the winter. Although summer itself would not get longer, days with warm temperatures will last longer then before. “So stock up on bathing suits.” It sounds like not a bad thing.
Nevertheless, what’s more important, the increase of temperature has bad effect of people’s health. As the weather become warmer, some diseases get a suitable environment to alive and spend. Because of the climate change, heat, humidity and rainfall will bring more mosquitoes, ticks and other parasites and carriers of tropical and subtropical disease to spread. Even to the area where these disease are not exist. Another fact as we all know is that if the temperature keeps increasing the sea levels are also rising as a result of global warming. This is harmful to islands and low-lying areas. People who live in that area may loss their home if is continues. There are some place disappeared because of global warming, like the Tiny Island which was in Bay of Bengal. All over the word faced these problems. If we focus on Colorado specially, for example, the longer time of summer and the shorter snow season changes water and snow pack, which is a great risk for Colorado. “Environment Colorado pointed to the current Boulder County Fourmile Canyon fire which has burned over 7,000 acres and 169 structures, along with the 2009 Boulder County Olde Stage Fire which burned over 3,000 acres during the winter, as examples of severe damage that extreme weather can cause.”
As it brings such a huge influence, where are these large amounts of greenhouse gas come from? A research shows that, 32 present of greenhouse gas come from electricity and heat. Land use change and forestry produce 24 present of greenhouse gas, there is 17 present from transportation, other fuel combustion are produce almost 10 present of greenhouse gas and industrial processes produce about 3 present greenhouse gas. As a result the carbon prints have connection with our individual life are from the electricity and heat and the transportation. The greenhouse gas they produced almost half of the whole quantity.
It is not as hard as we considered reducing carbon prints. We can start it from our daily life. There are two important points: reduce and recycle.
There are many things we can do to reduce the carbon footprints. As the above mentions, there are about 50 present carbon footprints come from electricity and heater and from the transportation. At the warm days, turn the thermostat up two degrees, and during the cold weather turn the thermostat down two degrees. In this way, it will decrease carbon output by about 2,000 pounds per year and can save about $98 per year for everyone. It is a quite good way, which benefit both the environment and people themselves. Nowadays people cannot leave without cell phone to connect with their family, friends, or people they have work relations. We usually keep them on even if we don’t use them, like after going to bed at night. Because we use our cell phone a lot, the battery used up quickly. Some of people include we have a bad habit, we don’t unplug electronics when don’t use them. Also like our stereos, after we used them, we always forget to unplug electronics. And we feel it is convinces for us because next time before we use them we don’t need to put the electronics on. However, even when electronics are turned off, something like cell phone charges, stereos, toasters and computers keep using energy. If people pull plugs out of the wall, they can save about 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide and $256 per year. It is easier to figure out there are too much traffic on the road. More and more people prefer to have a car because it makes life easier. While standing besides the street, people could not feel comfortable, as the cars produce too much carbon dioxide. If people can take the bus or light-rail, ride a bike, walk or carpool at least on day a week, they could avoid producing large mounts of carbon dioxide. From a research, every time people avoid driving one mile, they save one pound of carbon dioxide. Also, fill the car tires while driving. Inflated tires need more energy to roll, it means people need more frequent fill up gasoline. According to the Department of Energy, people can improve their fuel economy by about 3.3 percent if them keep their tires inflated properly. It shows that a car that normally gets 25 miles per gallon and drives 12,000 miles per year would require on extra 16- gallon fill-up annually and this extra 16 gallon need about $50. Multiply that by a million cars and the difference really adds up.
Another useful method to reduce carbon dioxide is recycling. Every time we recycle one pound of garbage, we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by one pound. In Denver, there is a website (www.denvergov.org/DenverRecycles ) for people to recycle the old or useless stuffs. At home there are always some old things like laptop, television and so on. We don’t use them any more, but they still stay at our home. This is because we don’t know where to throw them away and we afraid they might damage environment. While in this website, they prove us a easy way to recycle our useless things. What you need to do is sign up for pick up. If you live in a single-family house, town home, or an apartment building with fewer than seven units, you can get residential pick up for free. If you live in a larger apartment complex, you can click on the recycling directory link to find the closest drop off recycling center.
We all know global warming had already become a world wild issue, it has close connection with everyone. While to cut down the carbon footprints, is the key point to solve global warming. If we pay attention “reduce” and “recycle”, control the production of carbon dioxide in the nature environment would not be tough any more.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
DU Panel on Immigration Critiques System, by Cam Seglem
Have you ever thought about what it would be like to immigrate to another country and all the hardships of becoming a citizen in that country? How about trying to get into another country illegally? These are problems that many people experience all too often. A lot of the hardships are due the lack of help people receive in such situations.
These were the issues that were addressed in suite 1800 in Driscol hall on Thursday Feburary 10th in a small intimate group of people at the University of Denver. We were in a small circular group with no more than 20 people. After the introductory remarks the two rhetor’s were introduced, being Miguel de la Torre and Richard Froude. Richard Froude being more so concerned with the obtaining of a green card in America and the difficulties of that and Miguel de la Torre is an activist fighting for a better boarder system and to help illegal immigrants. This event was held as an information session more so than an open debate about Immigration and boarder control of our country. It touched on aspects of foreign policy and local policies for things such as obtaining work visas, green cards, citizenship and the reason why so many illegal immigrants especially from Mexico enter our country. Richard Froude had a very interesting story to tell the group however, Miguel de la Torre’s segment was much more provocative in its material.
One such man who tries to help these illegal immigrants is Dr. Miguel de la Torre. He is from Cuba and is all too familiar with our countries immigration policies and the hardships that come with them. On April 3, 1961 he was asked to leave the country or face being deported because his work visa had expired. He works for a group called “No more Deaths”, in which they support immigrants who cross our border illegally. They are not assisting these people to cross our boarders illegally but, instead to give them resources such as food and water so that they don’t die. Miguel is an activist that is trying to change the way our boarders, especially on the American side, are handled and to stop the unneeded deaths. No country is perfect however; there is no need for deaths to occur to people who are trying to better themselves and their families.
In a Country that uses 60-65% percent of the world’s resources for only about 6% of the world’s population, it is no wonder that people are trying to get into our country any way they can. However, as stated by Dr. Miguel this is not the only reason why there has been an influx in people trying to enter our country. Due to globalization, free trade, and certain US policies the United States has been able to subsidize goods that Latin American countries produce at a much lower price. These prices are so much cheaper that people like farmers, cannot compete in the market. Think of it this way, if the skill set you had developed your entire life suddenly became overshadowed by the most powerful country in the world, what would you do? Your profession and product you make becomes useless because no one wants your goods for the price you have to sell them for because they can get the same product for much cheaper. This leaves a person with very few choices, and in the case of Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, the choice becomes obvious. Get into the country that has taken your business and start to work and make a living there.
When Dr. de La Torre presented our group with this scenario it invoked a lot of different emotions. Especially when he said that there have been over 3600 deaths trying to cross our boarder and this number could easily be underestimated by 60%. However, when he was asked for his personal opinion on how to fix these problems he had no solution. This was quite disappointing because he grasped the attention of the entire audience through his pathos but, didn’t deliver a final all inclusive solution.
I do see the flaws in our system, however it is entirely too complicated of a system for a quick fix. The first steps are to remove the inhumane aspects used on border patrol, deportation, and immigration. The unprovoked beatings of illegal immigrants cannot continue to occur, and the repercussions of these beatings should be enforced. It’s impossible to please everyone however this doesn’t mean that we cannot protect people’s personal safety. In a world where being internationally conscious because of the continued growth of globalization can be seen everywhere there will have to be changes in certain policies or we will never be able to coexist being free of fear or racial tensions.
These were the issues that were addressed in suite 1800 in Driscol hall on Thursday Feburary 10th in a small intimate group of people at the University of Denver. We were in a small circular group with no more than 20 people. After the introductory remarks the two rhetor’s were introduced, being Miguel de la Torre and Richard Froude. Richard Froude being more so concerned with the obtaining of a green card in America and the difficulties of that and Miguel de la Torre is an activist fighting for a better boarder system and to help illegal immigrants. This event was held as an information session more so than an open debate about Immigration and boarder control of our country. It touched on aspects of foreign policy and local policies for things such as obtaining work visas, green cards, citizenship and the reason why so many illegal immigrants especially from Mexico enter our country. Richard Froude had a very interesting story to tell the group however, Miguel de la Torre’s segment was much more provocative in its material.
One such man who tries to help these illegal immigrants is Dr. Miguel de la Torre. He is from Cuba and is all too familiar with our countries immigration policies and the hardships that come with them. On April 3, 1961 he was asked to leave the country or face being deported because his work visa had expired. He works for a group called “No more Deaths”, in which they support immigrants who cross our border illegally. They are not assisting these people to cross our boarders illegally but, instead to give them resources such as food and water so that they don’t die. Miguel is an activist that is trying to change the way our boarders, especially on the American side, are handled and to stop the unneeded deaths. No country is perfect however; there is no need for deaths to occur to people who are trying to better themselves and their families.
In a Country that uses 60-65% percent of the world’s resources for only about 6% of the world’s population, it is no wonder that people are trying to get into our country any way they can. However, as stated by Dr. Miguel this is not the only reason why there has been an influx in people trying to enter our country. Due to globalization, free trade, and certain US policies the United States has been able to subsidize goods that Latin American countries produce at a much lower price. These prices are so much cheaper that people like farmers, cannot compete in the market. Think of it this way, if the skill set you had developed your entire life suddenly became overshadowed by the most powerful country in the world, what would you do? Your profession and product you make becomes useless because no one wants your goods for the price you have to sell them for because they can get the same product for much cheaper. This leaves a person with very few choices, and in the case of Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, the choice becomes obvious. Get into the country that has taken your business and start to work and make a living there.
When Dr. de La Torre presented our group with this scenario it invoked a lot of different emotions. Especially when he said that there have been over 3600 deaths trying to cross our boarder and this number could easily be underestimated by 60%. However, when he was asked for his personal opinion on how to fix these problems he had no solution. This was quite disappointing because he grasped the attention of the entire audience through his pathos but, didn’t deliver a final all inclusive solution.
I do see the flaws in our system, however it is entirely too complicated of a system for a quick fix. The first steps are to remove the inhumane aspects used on border patrol, deportation, and immigration. The unprovoked beatings of illegal immigrants cannot continue to occur, and the repercussions of these beatings should be enforced. It’s impossible to please everyone however this doesn’t mean that we cannot protect people’s personal safety. In a world where being internationally conscious because of the continued growth of globalization can be seen everywhere there will have to be changes in certain policies or we will never be able to coexist being free of fear or racial tensions.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream of Equality, by Xiaoting Liu
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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Randy Pausch Urges Audience to Achieve Childhood Dreams, by Jeremy Noble
The lecture I decided to report on was “The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”. This lecture was by Randy Pausch who was a courageous and inspiring human being. Randy was born October 23rd, 1960 and passed away July 25th, 2008. He left behind a wife named Jay and three kids name Dylan, Logan, and Chloe. Randy was born in Baltimore, Maryland. He is known for his creation of Alice software, virtual reality research with Disney imagineers, and his inspirational speech “The Last Lecture”. He was an American professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University. Randy was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in September 2006 and then in August 2007 he was given a terminal diagnosis with 3 to 6 months left of good health. He gave an inspirational speech at Carnegie Mellon University on September 18th, 2007. The speech has became very popular and currently has over 12 millions views on youtube. This alone says a lot about the speech. If there have been over 12 million people that have viewed the lecture on the computer, it must be very good.
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.
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
A table scattered with bite-sized cupcakes and informational pages greeted us as we arrived. A small intimate circle of no more than 20 people fit snugly in suite 1800 in the Driscol Bridge. We all gathered to hear two speakers give their tales of immigrating to the United States, and their thoughts on current immigration reform. Speaking was Richard Froude, a British immigrant in his eight year in the states currently applying for citizenship, joining Mr. Froude was Dr. Miguel de la Torre, an illegal immigrant from Cuba and now current United States citizen. Mr. Froude began the festivities with a quick recounting of the trials and tribulations of attempting to navigate living in America from visa to visa and attempting to gain duel citizenship. The keynote speaker was Dr. Miguel, who briefly touched on his experiences of immigrating, but focused more on highlighting the flaws with the current U.S. immigration policies. What ensued over the next 30 or so minutes was a very opinioned, radical, and one-sided presentation on the current front-page topic. With everything that happened in Arizona, and the new proposed immigration laws for Colorado, current discussions on immigration reform are obviously extremely relevant. The rhetorical situation was ideal, but it was Dr. Miguel’s emotional delivery that made his speech so persuasive.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)