In 1863, president Abraham Lincoln signed in the Emancipation Proclamation, which claimed “all persons held as slaves within the rebellious areas are, and henceforward shall be free.” Nevertheless black people still could not get respect from white people in United States. They could not go to the same school with white people, they could not vote for the policy events which have connect with them, and also they could not get respect from other people because their skin color. In a word, they had not freedom actually. As a result, a great people named Martin Luther King gave a speech “I have a dream” at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. in 1963.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream of Equality, by Xiaoting Liu
Friday, February 18, 2011
Randy Pausch Urges Audience to Achieve Childhood Dreams, by Jeremy Noble
During Randy’s last speech he was very happy, humorous, and shared inspirational life lessons. The lecture he gives is to his kids and it is about achieving your childhood dreams. It was based upon if you had to give a last lecture before you die, what would it be. Randy runs through all the experience he has gone through in his life and how the people and situations have affected him. There are two ways that Randy could have gone. He could have been depressed and upset, or he could cherish the time he had left and make it what it’s worth. He decided to look at his death as a positive thing and cherish every moment he had left. He does not look as this situation as unfair but as the way the world works. He uses a quote to sum this expression “We all stand on the dart board, but a very small amount of us are going to get hit by the dart called pancreatic cancer.” This quote explains itself by saying that being hit with this illness is just the way the world works. Some people are going to get sick and die and he is one of those people.
Throughout Randy’s speech he uses personal stories, quotes, humor, and life lessons to get his point across of achieving your childhood dreams. Randy uses personal stories that all sorts of people can relate to. There is a story where Randy was in football practice and his coach was riding him all practice. There was nothing Randy could to right in the coach’s mind. After practice the assistant coach goes up to Randy and says “Coach Graham rode you pretty hard today didn’t he” and Randy replied “Yeah.” The coach says back to him “that’s a good thing. When you are screwing up and nobody says anything to you anymore, then that means they have given up.” The whole general idea of this story is to make Randy realize that when people are on your case and correcting you, it means the care about you and want to make you better. A lot of people can relate to this example in many different ways other then in sports. This makes the audience think about times when people are on your case and that they are doing it for a reason.
Randy persuades his audience to achieve their childhood dreams. He uses life lessons and quotations to make people want to change and live their life to the fullest. An example of this is "It's not about how to achieve your dreams, it's about how to lead your life, ... If you lead your life the right way, the karma will take care of itself, the dreams will come to you." This is an example of Randy telling the audience a quote and making them think to themselves. There are many different thoughts that could be going through their minds. He uses his example of being very sick to make people realize how lucky they are. One example he says is to put yourself into his position. Think about how it would affect if you were told that you only have 3 to 6 months left to live. It really puts your life into perspective for yourself and makes you think. One day you could be here and the next day you could be gone. During Randy’s speech he uses humor to keep the audience attentive and interested. He does not want his speech to be a sad speech and all about him but rather what do with your life and to be grateful for what you have. He is positive through the whole experience since finding out about his diagnosis. People look at this as very inspirational because he does not curl up in a ball and dwell on what has happened. Instead, he is positive about it and makes the most out of the rest of his life. At the very end he sums up his speech and the type of person he is. He says he did this speech for his kids and to teach them life values.
A View into the Flaws of U.S. Immigration Laws, by Clay Danielsen
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
His ability to create an emotional connection with the audience was what kept his speech poignant, but it was his ethos that grabbed lured the audience in. His credibility on the subject was never in question; the MC of the event introduced him as a very special quest speaker with vast knowledge and experience on the subject at hand. Not only was he himself an immigrant, but also he has published a book showcasing the tragic stories of numerous Mexicans in their attempt to illegally cross the boarder, and is on the board of the non-profit No More Deaths, an organization that frequents boarder towns and provides immigrants making the journey to the U.S. with food, water, and medical supplies. He didn’t simply rest on his laurels, and he made sure throughout the speech reference details from either his own experiences, or the experiences of the many immigrants he has interviewed. He is also a professor of ethics, which again gives him further authority but he also uses various ethical frameworks to structure his argument.
After all of the introductions, by both the MC and himself, Dr. Miguel began his speech by stating, “People who think that immigrants come to this country for a better life are wrong. They come to regain the natural resources that were stolen from us.” From there he gave his speech, a wonderful combination of deeply emotional stories and powerful fact and data. This is where many rhetors stumble, by focusing too heavily on either emotion or empirical data. Dr, Miguel’s was full of fluid transition from one to another. About half way through the speech, after saying that one of the main problems with getting support for immigration reform is that it Americans are too disconnected with the fact that these are real people not just statistics, he took out a picture of a 14-year old girl who died trying to cross the boarder to join her family. The picture went around the circle, and every single person starred into the eyes of a cute young girl who feel victim to what Dr. Miguel called the countries most inhumane and unethical law. He continued by saying that the current immigration law is the only American law since the Jim Crow Laws that use death as a deterrent, which is ethically and fundamentally wrong.
Dr. Miguel also backed up his argument with expressive empirical data. Throughout his speech he made sure to augment all of his key points by either creating an intense emotional connection or using persuasive empirical evidence. After his introductory sentence claiming that immigrants are coming to collect their stolen resources, he supplemented that claim by showcasing that “60%-65% of the worlds resources are used by Americans, who make up only 6% of the population.” In the midst of the conversation about the 14-year old girl, he again used empirical data to enhance his claims that of the inhumanity of immigration laws. He stated that “3600 people die (every year) trying to cross the boarder and it is thought to be underestimated by %60 due to not counting deaths on the Mexican side, and all of the bodies never found.” His use of data points created the necessary balance between empirical evidence and pathos.
Dr. Miguel’s combination of empirical evidence and his ability to emotionally connect the audience to the issues of immigration made his speech very persuasive and thus extremely effective. There was occasionally a flaw in his ability to create a unified argument, but he made up for his lapses in logos by his mastery in his use of the ethos and pathos.
Susan Thornton Hopes to End Abuse, by Skylar Anderson
The cycle of domestic violence is seemingly endless and statistics seem to show a gradual increase in the number of reported domestic violence cases today. But why do we often find ourselves hitting the ‘channel’ button on the remote every time a news reporter blabs on about a new case of these crimes? Domestic violence has become such a prevalent issue in our society today that we each write it off as a too-complicated, common happenstance. It is easy to write off the issue as too difficult to think about, and move on with our lives. The Denver Post’s Susan Thornton aims to bring attention to the “Women’s Crisis and Family Outreach Center” in Douglas county, which is a safe shelter for battered women. She hopes to push the citizens of Colorado to think about domestic violence again, and to help get battered women the help that they deserve. Susan Thornton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade her readers to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center.
Susan Thornton opens her argument with “We know a lot about domestic violence,” using the word “we” to include all of her readers (Thornton). She grabs the attention of the reader by referring directly to the target audience. The reader will either choose to identify with Thornton at this point, or will doubt her claim, feeling falsely addressed. In order to restore certainty in those who may doubt her assumption that everyone knows a lot about domestic violence, she moves on to talk about common beliefs about domestic violence. She mentions how children exposed to violence at home tend to be more hyperactive, stressed, throw more temper tantrums, and are more likely to commit suicide or repeat the cycle of violence in their own families later on in life (Thornton). Now that the audience is aware of the common ground ideas about violence, she ponders, “We all know [these common beliefs], so why do we as a society do so little about it?” again using the word “we,” to suggest that ignoring domestic violence includes everyone. This is her call to action, and request for a sense of collective consciousness within society members. By widening her target audience with the all-inclusive “we”, Thornton surely also hopes to catch the attention of the battered women who choose to remain quiet about struggles at home. Maybe the abused will be able to feel a sense of a commonplace with the rest of the world when Thornton places us all in the same category. And this commonplace could also give the battered women the sense of community and belonging needed to come forward and seek help from the Women’s Crisis Center.
The use of inductive reasoning—that is, using a number of smaller facts to prove a larger point—also contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. As mentioned before, Thornton uses a few common beliefs early in the development in order to gain a commonplace for her audience to agree upon. The opposition argues that since so many domestic battery cases go unreported, it is a lost cause to help those who do not want it. But then she blows the opposition out of the water and points out that domestic violence is costly for taxpayers as we pay for cops who do respond to domestic calls, and is therefore an issue that needs to be resolved through awareness and the implementation of more safe shelters (Thornton). Everyone pays taxes, which is why we should care: because domestic violence cases take money out of our pockets.
Thornton’s most effective persuasion technique demonstrates when she alludes to the recent case in Aurora where a husband drowned his wife and then hanged himself. This image is gruesome and painful for most to even think about. It also forces the reader to feel the wrath of domestic violence and shine light on the safe haven the Women’s Crisis Center provides. She states that up to “90 percent of the homicides in the past 11 years in Douglas County have been linked to domestic violence,” which means that out of all the crimes reported, nearly all of them are related to domestic violence (Thornton). This demographic is shocking and is impetus enough for the reader to advocate for more safe centers for battered women. She mentions that suicide rates are much higher in children that are raised in households with lots of violent tendencies (Thornton). No parent wants to be responsible for the death of his or her son. The thought of someone killing themselves over conflict within the household is sickening enough to allow families to end the violence, or seek help through the Crisis Center.
Thornton first establishes a connection with her adult audience by throwing some grim statistics about children from violent households. Children are the future of our nation, and when many suffer from hyperactivity and depression because of brutality at home, everyone worries about the future of the youth. She addresses everyone directly and asks us all to spread the word about the new Women’s Crisis Center to help end the shockingly high numbers of domestic violence that exist today. To those who disagree and feel that battered women usually do not come forward, Thornton also says that the Crisis Centers save the county $1 million in court and jail costs that could be used for other critical causes. Maybe some battered women will come forward and seek help from the Crisis Center in response to support from the general public. Thornton hopes that the next time a case of domestic brutality is reported on the news, instead of reaching for the remote, we reach out into the community to support those in need.
Thornton, Susan. "Thornton: Shelter Helps Break Cycle of Abuse." Denver Post. 6 Feb. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
Immigration in a New Light, by Alice Xu
I went to a conversation on Thursday, February 10. The topic is about immigration. The reason why I am interested in this topic is because I am an international student here in the U.S.. After I graduate I have to facing the same problem with Dr. Miguel De La Torre and Richard Froude, which is stay here or go back to my home country.
Froude is from England. He came to the U.S. to visit when he was young, and he also visit Denver to found out if there were anything he wanted to do there. Finally, he finished his master degree in Colorado University Boulder campus. After he got his master degree, he went to university of Denver to study Theology.
Froude said, F1 visa which is student visa only last for a specific years for a student. Therefore, after he graduate he has to have a job or get married. Froude wanted to live in LA, but he knew that should be so different from England. Then he found a job as a productor of TV shows in LA. Therefore, he got the working visa and his employer pay for the application. However, this time he has to do the whole process by himself, because nobody would tell him what to do and how to do. After several years, Froude met his wife, who is an india, but move to the U.S. when she was one year old. At that time, his visa just got expired. Therefore, he has to do something. Get marry with his girlfriend, or back to England. He knew marriage is a serious problem, so he cannot get marry because of the visa. Therefore, he began to work in different company as different worker, just for the working visa.
On 2007, he finally married his girlfriend, and he felt that was a right decision. After he got married, he needed to apply a green card. However, he really did not know how to apply it. So he found a lot websites about how to apply green card, but those won’t help. Then he made an appointment with NSCIS. This appointment worth three thousands dollars just for 10 years green card. Also, it was just a permanent one, so it could be take away anytime. Because the application fee is so expensive, therefore he and his wife take it very seriously. At the day that they made an appointment to apply visa, denver was snowy heavily. They thought the department should be closed at that day, but they were not sure. Therefore, they tried to catch the bus to the department. They waited for half an hour but no bus come. Then they realize everything was closed that day. However, they still afraid that the NSCIS was open. Therefore, they drove their small car in dangerous situation to apply their green card. When they arrived, there were a lot people standing outside the building. They realized that the departement also closed that day. He said, everyone knew that the place should be closed, but they just wanted to make sure their money was still useful for the appointment.
Froude’s speech made the listener felt that to stay in a foreign country is a very hard thing in the life. His experience made me felt that I still have a rough future need to overcome. Now is just a beginning.
The Last Lecture of Life and Lessons, by Cailie Murphy
Professor Randy Pausch from Carnegie Mellon University lectured to 400 people. This last lecture of his was held on September 18th, 2007, and was called, “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”. This lecture informed his audience about his pancreatic cancer that is taking over his pancreas and that he will die in just a matter of short months. Randy presented himself as someone invincible and healthy as can be. He stood confident, energetic, cheerful, and hilarious.
As Randy begins his lecture, he has the audience laughing and engaged. He walks on the stage with complete confidence. He does not seem unhealthy but rather strong. His humor is presented from the moment he walks on to the stage. He first shows the cat scans of the ten tumors that are in his tumor, and that he is living his last three to six healthy months left of life. Most people would try to get sympathy from the audience but Randy says that even though he has the best doctors trying to treat him, he can’t change the fact that he has pancreatic cancer. He just has to respond to it and that in life no one can change the cards they are dealt. He then explains to the audience that he is not depressed, not in denial, but just aware with everything that is happening to his body and life. He has three beautiful young children and a loving spouse; so he is happy with the life he is able to live at this moment in time. Randy engages the audience right from the start by talking about his good health. Randy explains how he is probably in better health and stays in better shape then most of the audience. He then shows the audience by making a joke following with about ten pushups he does on stage. Not only does he do regular pushups but pushups with only one hand as well as claps in between each one. During this section of the lecture the audience is laughing extremely loud. Randy knows how to get the audience involved by his actions and humor. After he talked a little bit about his life and family, he points out the main topics of his lecture. He is not giving this lecture to talk about cancer, wife and dreams, or spirituality and religion because it already consumes the majority of his life and he will not be able to give the lecture without crying.
Randy’s majority of the lecture went through his six childhood dreams, how to enable the dreams of others, and lessons learned in life. The dreams consisted of; being in zero gravity, play in an NFL football league, be an author in the world book encyclopedia, meeting captain Kirk, winning a stuffed animal, and being an imagineer. He takes about ten minutes for each of these dreams, and pictures and stories of each of them happening in his life. As he talks there is a picture slide show behind him, this enables the audience to see the memories that he is referring too, and allows them to feel apart of his past. Randy achieved every one of his childhood dreams throughout his life, and made sure he did so once he was diagnosed.
During his entire lecture, Randy is constantly moving his hands and brings the audience into his stories by talking in dialogue form between his friends and coworkers. It felt as though he was making sure the audience felt every emotion he went through during his experiences. Another way Randy shows emotion and engages the audience is by changing his tone of voice between the dialogues of all the different people he refers to in his stories. Each person he acts as he changes his voice as well as his mannerisms. This then turns to the audience hysterically laughing and wanting to hear more.
Randy was a teacher at Carnegie Mellon for a Building Virtual Worlds class. He taught this class after experiencing many opportunities in the imagineering job force. This class was all group projects on creating spectacular projects every two weeks of the semester. Randy loved teaching and that his favorite moment about teaching is the bonding the students were able to create with one another. Randy states, “I can’t tell you before hand, but right before they present it I can tell you if the world’s good just by the body language. If they’re standing close to each other, the world is good”. This statement explains that Randy believes that when people bond just by doing a simple project, the world is in a good place and people support each other.
The final section of Randy’s lecture focus on the lessons he has learned. After each one of the lessons he uses his own experiences as examples. One life lesson is to never give up. As Randy was applying for college he got wait listed to Brown University. This was his dream school so every day he would call the admissions office and beg to be let in. This relentlessness gave him his acceptance to Brown and an amazing education. Another lesson he describes is to apologize when you screw up and to focus on other people instead of yourself. He then goes on to explain that the day before the lecture was his wife’s birthday and the focus today was on himself. His wife then comes onto the stage and Randy asks the audience to sing her happy birthday as a cake and a candle is put onto the stage. Even though this lecture is one of his biggest moments, Randy gave the attention to his wife to the entire audience. Randy’s final point talks about the “head fake,” which explains that life is not about achieving dreams, it is about how to lead a good life. By leading life the right way, karma will take care of everything, and the dreams will then appear.
Once Randy said, “Goodnight,” to the audience, they applauded with a standing ovation for 90 seconds. Then after a final speaker finished the lecture, the audience stood for another standing ovation. Randy had all eyes on him for his entire hour and fifteen minute lecture. He was respected by all 400 people in the room and the people he referred to in his speech. Randy gave life lessons, told touching stories, and proved to the world that even though he will be dead in a matter of months, life is a privilege and live like every day is the last. The end can come suddenly, and so have fun and do not regret anything but learn. Randy’s last lecture was extremely powerful and millions of viewers learned from his words.
Denver Mayoral Candidates Gather to Discuss the Educational System
This week a cut to the public school system was proposed by the governor along with other attempts to balance the budget through 2012. With public school funding hovering around 30% of the overall budget, its no surprise to hear that cuts are coming. Along with other concerns, such as merit pay and forming more after school programs, there is now 350 million more reasons why education funding should be the talk of the town.
Mayoral candidates are gearing up for many debates as the race to be Denver’s next Mayor heats up. High on the list of topics are concerns regarding the quality of the Denver Public School system and proposed reductions to DPS funding. Two issues the new Mayor will definitely be dealing with in the coming years.
On Friday, February 16, KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) hosted the Denver Mayoral Candidates Forum on Education at Riscel High School in Denver to discuss the topic of education in the city. Seven candidates running for Mayor were in attendance as well as the President of the Denver Public Schools Board of Education, Dr. Nate Easley and Executive Director of KIPP, Rebecca Holmes. The event was set to start at 8am and as people started making their way in, it was apparent that the interest to hear positions regarding education was important to students, teachers and parents that made up the audience. The stage was set for the event to begin with 4 tables to seat the candidates and one table for the moderators.
Rebecca Holmes took the microphone around 8:15 to start the event with a quick introduction and on overview of the KIPP programs. Explaining that KIPP is a network of free open-enrollment college preparatory public schools in under-resources communities throughout the United States and offers service in 3 locations in and around the city. Holmes gave a quick introduction to the two moderators and mayoral candidates in attendance before stepping off stage.
The moderators began the discussion with an explanation of the rules and process for the debate. To get things started each candidate was given one minute for a brief overview of his or her background and to state why education was important to him or her. This gave the audience an opportunity to get a sense for who was on stage and hear their motivations to improve the educational system in Denver.
The forum was setup so that the candidates were selected at random and could pass on a question once. The range of questions started out lightly which allowed each candidate to establish a general ethos. Questions such as “when was the last time you visited a school, met with parents and/or teachers?” eventually leading up to the harder questions that tested their knowledge of the current issues and statistics. The forum overall had a wide spectrum of topics which left me with a more rounded sense of each person on stage.
Three candidates stood out amongst the rest for three different reasons. As candidates running for Mayor, one would expect a sense of preparedness, being clear and precise and appealing to the audience. Surprisingly, I took away mixed feelings about the attention given by some of the candidates on stage. Some where there showing genuine interest and others seemed to be there just because the others joined the forum.
James Mejia stood out amongst the rest. He was well prepared and was very precise with his answers, not once repeating himself. Mr. Mejia was one of the few in a suit and tie and always stood up when giving his answers. His demeanor on stage created a sense of respect for to his audience and enforced his attention to the subject. I found myself wondering way every candidate wasn’t showing this level of engagement. Mejia presented himself very well and connected with the audience every time he spoke, giving exact answers to every question.
Ken Simpson took a very different approach. He was very casual in his appearance and responses. His persona was extremely casual for the event, dressed in a flannel shirt and jeans. He quickly establishes a connection with the students with his introduction and directs all of his answers towards them, and often received applause from those in the audience. As the other candidates talked about school principals and teacher performance, Ken talked about better school environments and cleaner bathrooms. Although very genuine, I feel his approach would have been better served if the audience were filled with more students.
Thomas Wolf was the least prepared and seemed the most out of place. Even though Thomas was well dressed and was quick to speak, he came across as arrogant and loud. He was the only candidate to pass on a question and wasn’t able to answer many of the speed round questions regarding the status quo of the system today. Thomas has a background of an investment banker and his responses were structured as if to close a deal which I feel was too much for the audience in the auditorium. His ethos was not servicing his appeal to be the next Mayor of Denver.
To finish up the forum each candidate gave a closing remark and most followed up on answers they gave throughout the discussion. Even though there was a wide range of questions, I feel there wasn’t enough time set aside to answer the questions effectively. It would have been to the benefit of everyone if there were less questions and more focused questions around one or two issues within the system. That way the candidates would’ve had more time to set the stage and strengthen any arguments.