humor

For my humor in an arguement piece i am using an Saturday Night Live skit that is talking about Palin and Hillary. I thought that it was a perfect skit for me to show because it goes along with my theme of women in the election. It goes along with humor because it is basically making fun of both Palin and Hillary. Just by there personalities and what the media says about them. But they also point out things in the election that has to deal with them and how women in the election continues to get bigger. There is humor in it because they play off a lot of the stuff that the media says about them like they start talking about looks and the election. When it came to Hillary they used things like Hillary was manly and everythig made her come off as very masculine. While when they were talking about Palin everything came off as very feminine and they played with the media talking about how attractive she is. I thought it was a very good skit because they got so many aspects of the election in it and they choose the best people to play the roles.
Here is the link to watch it: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/

Op-Ed

It’s a Man’s Job
“Not ready for that type of change.”
So what is different about the election this year? If we would like to start a list we could start with how Barack Obama is the first black man running for president, John McCain is one of the oldest men to run for president, and the amount of women that have been involved in this election process. The amount of women is something that I have continually heard about all through the year starting with Hillary running to Palin running with McCain for vice president. It amazes me that this has been such a big deal to this election from the controversy about lipstick on a pig to the running of the country.
One reason, out of many, that I have been told for why women can not run the country is because “it’s a man’s job.” I find this very odd in this day in age because both women and men are “bringing home the bacon.” I know that is a clique but there are plenty of women that are bringing in just as big of an income as their husbands, boyfriends or whoever. There are plenty of women that are handling their own lives, even possibly better then men. Showing that women do have responsibility and control of their lives and they do not all depend on men to run their lives for them. But if a woman did make it to office that would be a huge change like having to say Madame President instead of Mr. President and instead of a first lady we would have a first gentleman. So obviously America has to think can they handle these types of changes? I have spoken to people who really think that “America is not ready for that type of change.” Or maybe the idea of no longer having testosterone running the country and instead having estrogen in charge is what makes people a little uneasy. This would be a huge change because with estrogen comes the worry of 48 months out of the presidency.
So yes, ladies and gentlemen, suddenly the way that women’s bodies work are being used against them. One of the best explanations for why women can not handle the country is because “once a month a woman will be liable to kill us or start a war if she is PMSing enough.” I love that this has become a legitimate reason for some people to use against women who are running for president. So suddenly how women’s bodies work has become a personal flaw. So if a female president has a bad day or becomes angry about something at least the country can have a reason for her actions or what she says. Everyone can just blame it on the PMS. Sounds like a good deal to me. What does the United States have to say if a man becomes angry or does something totally uncalled for?
But seriously for personality reasons what do women have that is different. Women are motherly, which has been looked down on in business. Possibly this characteristic could make women have poor judgment, or make them soft or weak while making decisions. But being motherly is not a negative quality in the slightest. It does not make you soft or weak in judgment or in decision making, in fact, I see it more as it being a way for women to look on both sides of a situation. Allowing her to be a bit more opened minded in a situation or at least be able to sympathize with one side or the other; this is not going to stop her from making a decision that is best for the country. I highly doubt that, be it male or female, the president is going to make a decision that will seriously hurt the country in any way. So why would being “motherly” be a bad quality for a woman to have. If anything it would make her more protective. Just as many women are over their children. The country would in a sense become like her child since the president is basically helping and watching it grow. Yes, everyone makes mistakes and wrong paths are chosen, however, isn’t that just human nature. Making mistakes is not something that can be blamed on a woman or a male. If you have testosterone or estrogen, if you are motherly or not.
So I personally do not see a flaw about a woman becoming president. I do not see the situation as a woman would not be able to handle a country because it is a “man’s job.” For president I would rather have someone with good character that I could trust handling our country. So I say a solution to these presidential elections is to stop focusing on the idea that there are women in the races, since news flash there are capable in the world, and start actually looking at the content of the character and the capabilities of the people that are running for the president. I believe in having a good leader and not one based off gender who may not be a good representative and leader for the United States because they do become the face of the U.S.
By: Breann Hager




Ok, so just a heads up about my paper and for a refresher. The audience I am going for is women and my article is going to be in a Cosmopolitan or Vogue. I thought this would be a good place to put this because I think this is the best place to reach a lot of women. Ok, for my topic it is women in the presidential race and the personal flaws that tend to be associated with women and those flaws that are used against them for not being able to run the country. I feel like I am kind of all over the place and need to find a new way to organize my thoughts. If you could give me any suggestions or thoughts that would be wonderful. Thank you for reading my paper

sample argument of definition

Is downlaoding music hurting the singers and bands by taking money in their pocket or is it a way to help them put money in their pocket by exposing their music to other people? I think that this is a good definition because you can make a claim to this statement like downloading music does not hurt the singers or bands or downloading music does hurt the singers or bands. You can make a reason with this information like it noes not hurt them because it instead spreads their music to people who possibly would never listen to them, which then can make people want more and they can buy cds and go to the concert. Or they can say that It does not help them because it does not force people to go out and buy the cd. For the warrent it can be somthing like bands usually gain more money and popularity by allowing people to download their music and the same for the other side.

Audience and venue for op-ed

For my op-ed piece i have decided on the audience and the venue that i am going to use. For my audience i am going trying to direct my op-ed toward women. My topic is about gender in this election. Primarily being a women in this election because this is being has become such a huge deal and is being talked about all the time. Also, people are twisting words and trying to use them against the candidates for being offensive toward women. This includes both the democrates and the republicans. Then for the venue i am going to use cosmopolitan or vogue. In my group we debated this because who would take my article serious in these magazines. However, there are always wonderful articles in these magazines and I am sure that more women probably read these more then the new york times and such things as that. Also, I may even reach women that may not have had an interest the election. I do believe that this is a good place to put this information because in an election a huge part of the voters are people who are new or just do not think about voting. Hopefully, reading things like this will prob make women want to start woting or thinking about voting in the election.

Arguments on Fact

For my argument of fact I am going to bring a Vaseline total moisture body lotion. I am bringing this because after realizing pretty much anything can be an argument of fact if it tells you that something is going to happen if you use a product. For this product it states that if you use it everyday it can replenish 100% of the moisture that you lose in your skin. I have never really thought about this possibly being a lie and I really took it as a fact when I bought it because I figured that it had to be true or why would it be on the bottle. However, how do you know if it really does replenish all of your moisture and vitamins in your skin every time that you put it on. It is weird that things that we think of as a fact can be misunderstood. Like the example about the car seat in the book where they compared the safety of children in a car seat to children in a car unrestrained. Things that people look at like a fact can be misconstrued and people can be mislead if the "fact" is not looked into completely.

Paper #1

Feeling a Challenge, Obama Sharpens His Silver Tongue
By: Jeff Zeleny
In this piece I can see where Obama is “sharpening his tongue.” I agreed with you about the comments that he was making like the statements about how Obama has always been for change and now McCain is also attempting to spread that message just in another way. Yet, I did find it unnecessary for the comment about “put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig” is being used as an example to this piece of Obama sharpening his tongue. Even you stated that “Mr. Obama was employing an age-old phrase.” So my question to you is why did you feel like you should mention the controversy only around this phrase?
I do realize that gender in the election is a big deal during this election compared to many elections before, however, was it necessary for you to go into detail about the lipstick controversy compared to the other statements that you stated Obama was making. For example, change and experience. I know that Obama is getting heat for those statements from the press and McCain and both have to do with Palin and the sudden shift of topics. The sudden shift from hearing how Obama does not have the experience and change to suddenly nothing is said about it because Palin is in the same shoe as Obama. She went from hardly being known to a national figure. Yet, nothing about this was stated in your article when you mentioned these points; you felt the need to elaborate on the lip stick on a pig deal. I ended up reading this article more focused on the fact that Palin might have been called a pig rather then the actual content that was intended for me to take away.
Within the last statement you mention that he, Obama, is trying to be careful in this gender based election, and once again I do not see how this paper has really anything to do with a gender based election since it was meant to focus on his sharpened tongue or the rhetoric he is attempting to step up, and not the fact that McCain and his campaign managers took the statement as a direct stab at Palin because she is female and just because there is a mention of lipstick suddenly it has become related to women. This bothers me because if this was any other election and this statement was made it would have been over looked basically. Just like the second half of that statement, “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.” I thought that was interesting that the second half of this statement was not targeted yet the first half was. I can continue about the way that I thought this statement was taken the wrong way and how I do not necessarily agree with how people are making it into a bigger deal then it is, but I am going to stop. This is because I know that there is a better time and place for statements regarding this topic only. Possibly another article that only regards that problem that is being faced, and not during an article that is of a totally different story.
My only complaint then about this is that reason. If you are going to elaborate on one “sharp tongued” remark then make sure to elaborate on all of them. Especially, do not elaborate on the woman factor statement if you are talking about how Obama needs to watch what he is saying. I say follow your own advice too.





Breann Hager
September 16, 2008

I just wanted to say that I did have a little bit of trouble with writing this because I did not know exactly how to structure this or how to necessarily organize my thoughts on the paper. I know I repeat a lot but if you can tell me where I can improve on that it would be awesome. Also, anything else that you can tell me to help me improve because I, honestly, need a lot of help. I did not think that writing this would be that hard for me, but II was proven wrong. Thank you for your help.

Article for my Letter to the Editor

Feeling a Challenge, Obama Sharpens His Silver Tongue
By JEFF ZELENY
LEBANON, Va. — A new character is making a debut at Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rallies: His name is John McCain.
It began quietly on Monday in Michigan, but grew in volume as Mr. Obama made his way from Flint to Farmington Hills, carrying over to a speech on Tuesday morning in Ohio. By the time he arrived for an evening stop in the southwestern tip of Virginia, Mr. Obama’s sales pitch contained nearly as many references to Senator McCain as to himself, suggesting how the McCain campaign has been driving the recent dialogue of the presidential race.
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics,” Mr. Obama told his supporters here. “That’s just calling the same thing something different.”
With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
In the latest sign of the campaign’s heightened intensity, Mr. McCain’s surrogates responded within minutes and called on Mr. Obama to apologize to Gov. Sarah Palin for the lipstick remark. But to those in the audience, it was clear that Mr. Obama was employing an age-old phrase — lipstick on a pig — and referring to Mr. McCain’s policies. He had not yet mentioned Ms. Palin at that point of his speech.
The exchange came as Mr. Obama has been stepping up his own rhetoric as he has sought to draw attention back to himself after a week in which Ms. Palin has dominated the stage.
For all the discussion about polls this week, perhaps the best barometer of the state of the campaign can be found by simply taking a listen to Mr. Obama as Election Day rushes up on him.
With just 57 days remaining in this long presidential race, Mr. Obama is going after Mr. McCain more aggressively than at any other point in the campaign, with a professorial tone giving way to one of prosecution. These days, he sounds more like those sharp-tongued commercials seen on television.
“Do you really believe John McCain is going to make a difference now?” Mr. Obama said, mentioning his rival’s name twice in the same breath, a pattern he repeated again and again. “John McCain doesn’t get it.”
His advisers said that combative edge was essential to blunt any progress Mr. McCain was making as he sought to encroach on Mr. Obama’s trademark message of change. Or perhaps it is in response to cries of alarm from Democrats who believe he is being too mild-mannered.
But Mr. Obama’s remarks are curiously reminiscent — right down to that mocking tone — to words he spoke nearly a year ago when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton suddenly tried to swipe the mantle of change and Mr. Obama demonstrated a fight that many Democrats had doubted he could muster.
Mr. Obama has been in this place before: finding the proper temperature to aggressively critique — or attack — his rival without tarnishing his own image of trying to remain above traditional politics. As he enters the final eight weeks of the race, advisers said, the lessons from the Democratic primaries are alive in his head.
Mr. McCain and his running mate, Ms. Palin, seem to be there, too.
“A month ago, they were all saying, ‘Oh, it’s experience, experience, experience,’ ” Mr. Obama said, speaking over booming applause the other night in a high school gymnasium. “Then they chose Palin and they started talking about change, change, change. What happened? What happened? What happened?”
For one of the few times in his presidential candidacy, Mr. Obama is suddenly not the freshest and most telegenic figure on the ballot. While he seems to have settled on a line of attack against Mr. McCain, his campaign appearances in the past 12 days make clear that he is still grappling with his approach to Ms. Palin.
He has declared her family off limits. He has praised her biography, telling an audience, “Mother, governor, moose shooter — that’s cool.” But he has taken sharp aim at her record as Alaska governor, vigorously questioning her evolving stance on the state’s so-called bridge to nowhere.
“She was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it,” Mr. Obama said, speaking over an applauding crowd in Michigan. “I mean, you can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”
There were plentiful signs in recent days that the voters turning out to see Mr. Obama liked his forceful tone, with several audiences chanting along with him, “Eight is Enough! Eight is Enough!” which has become a rallying cry for changing Washington.
Newly invigorated, his presence and energy on stage resembled how he began to act last fall as his extended primary battle with Mrs. Clinton became fully engaged.
But as in that contest, Mr. Obama’s aggressive posture comes with possible pitfalls — real or created by the opposition — as he again navigates the tricky terrain of gender politics.
As Mr. Obama’s motorcade passed through the Appalachian countryside on Tuesday night, aides inside his campaign headquarters back in Chicago were fighting back criticism over the lipstick-on-a-pig remark, assertively trying to steer the conversation back to attacking Mr. McCain.

Topic #1

For my topic I am going to talk about the gender role of women that is being used in this election. I have been interested in this ever since I this election has started. Beginning with the fact that Hillary Clinton was going to run. I originally was all for Hillary to campaign and win this election. However, I changed my mind after realizing the only real reason I liked her was because she was a woman... I did not necessarily agree with all of her opinions. During the time that I was cheering her on and hoping that she would win I always received the comment "You only like her because she is a woman." Yet, on the flip side when I changed my mind about her I received many comments like "You do not like her because she is a woman." Which, personally did not make since because due to the fact I am a woman wouldn't that mean I would like her more. Further more, I never heard during any time of this election someone going up to a male and telling them that they were voting for McCain or Obama because they were a man or the only reason you do not like then is because they are a man. I find it interesting that people around the country are making such a huge deal out of the fact there are women running. Not only that but everything now that politicians and others say are looked at even closer.
Now with that is why I have chosen my article. I found it in the New York Times and it is discussing the speech that Obama made when he said "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig." In any other election that has gone on in the history of the United States this comment would not be looked at twice. If it did it would have been seen as a stab at the opponents views. However, due to the fact that McCain has a woman running with him it suddenly became tied to Ms. Palin. All I have to say to that is just because Obama says that a pig is wearing lipstick does not mean that he is talking about a woman. This age old phrase became twisted into something more then it was meant to be. This and other things like that are what interests me about the women in the race. Now McCain and Obama have to watch everything they say in hopes that they do not say anything that can be tied back to a rude comment about a woman. I say just run this race like any other. Why should the whole gender thing matter?

Presidential Election

In the presidential election there are MANY issues that are going around, and I find a couple of them important. This is the first presidential election that 1. have been able to actually be involved in and vote and 2. I have actually been interested in. I have been following up on this election since my government class last year that opened my eyes to how big of a deal a presidential election really is.
I have sat and studied some of the aspects that is making up this election and I feel that I tend to look toward things like education and teachers. This matters a lot to me because I am an education major and do plan on becoming a teacher as soon as I graduate. This is going to impact me a lot and I also feel education is a HUGE thing for American to look at. Especially since statistics show that we are beginning to fall behind China and India. However, I will get off that topic because I could talk about it forever.
Also, I do believe that the war is a big deal to Americans also. I think more what is going to become of it. I personally, believe no matter who becomes the president is going to pull anyone out of Iraq. So I am looking more toward what the candidates plan on doing at all. Some I have to look harder then others but I really want to know everything I can about this topic.
Health care is the last thing I really look at. This is very important because, once again, this involves everyone in the United States. I am very interested in the plans to make it universal or not. I am interested in this topic, however, I have not looked into it yet as much as I wish I have.
These are the top three things I look for and I am going to continue to look for other things that interest me, but for now this is about it.

Logos

Since Logos is "based on facts, evidence, and reason" I am going to choose to bring in a weather report for my example. I do realize that it is an example in the book, however, I was surprised to see it as an example for Logos. This may seem strange but I have honestly never realized that a weather report would count as a Logos example or even as an argument. After contemplating this I realized in that this did make since. It can be an argument based off facts because how the weather is going to look is looked at as a "fact" for how we should expect or day to be. If the weather person says that there is a 60% chance of rain that is what I am going to look for and dress for. Now this can be an argument for the present if it does not look like it is even close to raining. It can be an argument for the future if it says it is going to rain so that is how you dressed and then it ends up being 90 degrees out and sunny.
This is an argument but it is not as emotionally powerful as the picture of the girl struck by a drunk driver and as the paper stating that liberating Iraqi children cost too much. However, weather reports can be an argument of great emotion, especially, if the weather turns out incorrect.

Sample Argument

For my sample argument I chose to use a chik fil a cow. I thought this was a good sample for the arguments because it fits into many of the argument categories. It argued for you to make a decision because it is now arguing with you to make a decision to come and eat chicken at chick fil a instead of going out and eating cow at another fast food place or restaurant. Also, the stuffed animal atempts to convince you to choose chick fil a for breakfast, lunch, dinner, or whatever meal or snack you are looking for. Also, it is to inform you of chick fil a and its existance in general. Now for the time that this could take place within the argument is the present because it can argue for you to eat now. The future because you can decide that later you would rather have chick fil a, and also in the past because this could make you argue with your self or someone else about why you did not choose to eat at chick fil a and instead for eating at another restaurant. So once again to verify my point, my stuffed animal chick fil a is an excellent piece of evidence to prove there is arguement every where.