Issues at TCU

The first idea that came to my mind for the collaborative proposal project was the lack of recycling bins available on TCU’s “green” campus.  I am well aware of the efforts being done to make TCU a more sustainable environment, which is awesome and definitely making a noticeable difference. However, one of the simplest things TCU can incorporate into making TCU a “greener” environment is to provide recycling in the educational buildings, the library, and  the Brown-Lupton University Union, at least.  As of right now, they are only available in a few of the residential buildings.  Less than half of all students, faculty and staff live in those residential buildings! Making them available at sporting events and other miscellaneous events on campus would also make a huge difference in TCU’s carbon emission.  The direct audience would be TCU’s higher administration in charge of waste management and recycling.  TCU students, faculty and staff would be another target audience because the more people urging for increased availability of recycling, the more the reason for the administration to make it happen.  Surveys of people living on and off campus asking them about their knowledge of TCU’s recycling program and its ease of access on campus would be a very effective rhetorical tool, for the administration would be able to see that the majority of TCU students don’t know of any locations of recycling bins on campus.  Emphasizing the ongoing process of make TCU a “greener” place, would also be a great strategy because recycling is one of the simplest, inexpensive aspects that could be added to the program.

Another thought that transpired is a rather personal one.  TCU owns the rights over the Greek housing communities in Worth Hills, which has its pros and cons.  To my chapter as a whole, along with several other chapters, we believe that each chapter should have the right to build their own house, as a time-honored tradition that a great number of other campuses allow across the United States and in Canada.  Many alumni from different Greek organizations have proposed ideas to TCU’s administration, focusing on building chapter houses on or off campus, offering to comply by important TCU regulations if allowed to be on-campus.  In a matter of two years, just about every residential building on campus will have been remodeled and updated with more energy efficient materials and offer a healthier environment for students… except the residential buildings in Worth Hills.  Again the direct audience would be the higher TCU administration in charge of residential housing.  Members of the Greek community associated with the living situations located in Worth Hills would also make up a part of the intended audience. Surveys among students and alumni living or who have lived in the Greek housing at TCU asking about the quality of the buildings and their personal experience of their extended stay would be key to this argument.  Also, interviews with alumni and officers in other Greek chapters at schools who offer fraternity-owned and operated chapter houses about their experiences of living in them would be essential as well.

Matt Stone

Reason magazine’s interview with Matt Stone and Trey Parker ends on a quote from Matt Stone: “If anybody’s telling me what I should do, then you’ve got to really convince me that it’s worth doing.” (Gillespie 6).  In another interview with The AV Club, Stone admits that the South Park series isn’t so much about politics, but about the emotions coming out of the politics. “Who cares if it’s a right-or-wrong policy—here’s how it makes me feel.” (Robinson 1). 

Although I don’t agree with everything Matt Stone has to say, whether it be through South Park, Team America, or in his interviews, I can certainly relate to his frankness.  His harsh wittiness seen through all genres of media he involves himself in, speaks to me.  Stone and his partner in crime, Trey Parker, have become beyond successful all on the statute that they’re not afraid to speak their minds, especially in regards to controversial issues.

 Anyone who has only spent about fifteen minutes with me would probably describe me as very “in-your-face” and perhaps even arrogant.   (First impressions aren’t my forte.)   I certainly don’t mean to come off in that way, but I do strongly believe in being up front with my beliefs.  If I feel a topic is worth fighting for, I will voice my opinion to spark change, no matter how contentious the issue might be. 

In the interview with The AV Club, Stone states that at the end of the day, “we are just making jokes” (Robinson 2).  It’s plain to see that Stone and Parker are very passionate about the work they do, or else they wouldn’t be in their thirteenth season on the air.  And they obviously do illustrate their personal views on certain topics, but their main goal is to entertain their audience.  I hope to one day be successful because of the passion I have for my career and causes I choose to participate in.  To me, life’s not worth living if you’re going to sit on the sidelines and allow other people to lead you on a certain path.  Taking initiative and being self-confident can take you a long way if you set your own goals. 

Stone is frequently heard speaking his mind on the topic of free speech.  When he’s not allowed to share his opinions with his audience, he’s ticked off.  (Excuse the informality). He believes that if someone knows they’re not going to enjoy watching something as controversial as South Park, then they just shouldn’t listen at all. Sometimes I wish it was socially appropriate to say whatever’s on my mind whenever I felt the need, but I know it’s not, nor will it ever be.  I think that moral should be respected, despite what all I’ve stated before.  However, I believe everyone should be able to accept criticism, for that’s part of what establishes character.

Matt Stone has and always will be proud of his accomplishments.  And so he should.  He has nonstop motivation for his job and seems to constantly give it his all.  Through these aspects of him, I reflect upon myself and my values.

 

Bill O’Reilly

As the majority of y’all probably already know, Bill O’Reilly is a highly controversial news journalist.  He has a cable news show that airs on Fox News Channel every week night that includes news analysis and investigative reporting; he’s often interviewing people on the opposite side of the political spectrum as he is.  The first experience I had with the notorious rhetoric of Bill O’Reilly happened when I read his most recent memoir, A Bold, Fresh Piece of Humanity.  Most people know of his blunt personality from his news show, but in this book, he gives readers insight as to why he believes what he does and why he chooses to publicize his opinions in the manners in which he does.

I am definitely a part of his general audience for the fact that I believe in many of the same conservative views as he does and wish to communicate them with those around me.  However there have been a few things I have heard and/or read from him that I wish not to associate myself with.

Bill O’Reilly is not afraid to speak his mind. Period. People either love him or hate him. He backs up his claims with evidence and expert opinions on the subjects at hand, without sugar-coating them.  His cut-and-dry attitude, along with the prior statements, enhances his ethos as a journalist.   In A Bold, Fresh Piece of Humanity, the reader experiences a softer side O’Reilly; he’s still very blunt and to the point, but one gets an idea as to why he lives his life as he does.  Throughout the memoir, he uses past experiences in his life to point out his long-term goals and how he has applied the lessons he’s learned throughout his childhood into adulthood.  By doing this, he reminds the reader that one’s character is shaped by memorable events in one’s past.  This aspect of the memoir is what hit me the most.  While I was reading many of the amusing or heart-rending anecdotes, I started reflecting on past events of my own that have shaped who I am today. 

O’Reilly doesn’t let others influence his own opinions nor does he ever give in.  He’s inspired me to never lose my dignity or candor in any situation life throws at me, regardless of how challenging it is.  In regards to rhetorical style, his confidence and matter-of-fact tone of voice are the two main aspects that draw me in.  By illustrating my passion toward inspirational topics and exuding confidence in my claims, I hope to be as effective as O’Reilly is on a daily basis.  During the collaborative proposal, I hope to act as a leader and voice my perspectives in a respectful manner.  O’Reilly’s reporting comes off as extremely disrespectful to many of his critics and fans, alike; in showing my respect toward others’ opinions, I will be able to gain ethos as a writer/speaker/reporter.

Paper 3 definitions

I am choosing to write about the term “throw-away society”.  These are my possible sources:

http://www.timgreyhavens.com/gallery.php?gallery=tas

http://www.ourbetternature.org/throwaway.htm

http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=1944

http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/wastes.html

Religulous

To me, religion is more or less a set of beliefs and traditions that a person uses as a basis for their morals and values and as a set of guidelines for their lifestyle.  While some people choose to be exceedingly active in their respective religions on one side of the spectrum, others tend to believe in the ideas associated with their faith, but they don’t necessarily use them to dictate every single detail of their life.  I would consider myself to fall in the moderate region leaning more toward the former end of the extremes.  Bill Maher, however, doesn’t even fit within the ranges of this particular spectrum.  He believes religion, especially beliefs in the 20^th and 21^st century, is “detrimental to humanity.” Through his various interviews with a wide variety of people, and his specific choice of pictures and video clips, Maher tries to prove that “religion” is only harming world society, not aiding it in any form or fashion.

The term “religulous” is a mix between “religion” and “ridiculous”; throughout the entire he points to several examples of how the expression “religion” has become an absurdity and making believers of faith look like fools.  The majority of the people he questions are people who aren’t on the same intellectual level as he is; he used people who he knew couldn’t easily prove their credibility on the issue.  By showing specific clips from the “interviews” with these people, Maher is effectively getting his argument across to the targeted audience.   His intended audience is made up of moderately religious people coming from the top three monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, who might be questioning their beliefs or who aren’t very educated on the history or traditions of their respected faith.  Many images and video clips that pop up in between scenes and takes are alluding to certain historical events from the 20^th and 21^st centuries that point at the hypocrisy of the major monotheistic religions in the modern age. He uses these and the “interviews” to sway the audience in the direction of having no religion.  In one segment in the film, he further points out how illogical contemporary religious beliefs are with the idea of “the Great Reckoning,” or the end of the world as we know it.  In between clips of suicide bombers and nuclear threats, quotes from the Quran, the Bible, and the Torah appear across the stage regarding the destructive end of the world, which God will bring about.  This along with the dramatic music, gets the adrenaline pumping in the viewer, whether it be anger toward Maher or frustration with the viewer themselves for believing in such “ridiculous” theories.

Being as I’m not in the intended audience, I believe his overall argument is not effective.  He uses absurdity to try and prove the absurdity of religion.  He fails to mention that other significant events in modern history originated from the basis of “non-religious” societies: Nazism and the Holocaust, Joseph Stalin in Russia, incidences from the ruling of Mao Zedong in China, etc.  Of course it wouldn’t make sense for Maher to include any of this in his “documentary” as it disproves his claim but if a viewer were to do their own research of the effectiveness of religion, they would find just as many pieces of evidence against his claim as he found for it.

Post 9/11 Blues

Riz MC blatantly satirizes the US government and Britain’s parliament for the actions and events they initiated following the 9/11 “terrorist” attacks.  The theme of “Post 9/11 Blues” is how the attitudes of citizens of western-civilized nations have changed from being confident to scared and fearful of what might happen during the days following the September 11^th attacks.

The audience is specifically left-winged people between the ages eighteen and thirty living in the major urban cities of the United States or Britain and are politically against President George W.  Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.  There are several examples that point to this being the intended audience.  The rap genre of music became popular during this generation of people in history in western civilizations.  Riz Ahmed, the rapper’s legal name, is a British Muslim and was born in 1982, making him apart of the audience as well.  By the allusions solely in the first stanza shown in the video, any viewer can plainly see that the audience is based around young people living in urban areas in the U.S. or Britain.   The video opens with a scene of Riz waking up with a British flag as a blanket in a contemporary designed bedroom then moves along to a scene of him eating “Condoleezza’s Rice Krispies” with milk from a container sporting the claim, “Wanted: George W. Bush for crimes against humanity and the planet”.  Seeing as both George W. Bush and Tony Blair, the then current prime minister of the U.K., were in agreement on the “war on terrorism”, and Riz’s rap is centered around the opposition of the “war on terrorism” and the U.S. and British governments, it is safe to say the audience is made up of liberal-thinking individuals opposed to the policies of these two world leaders.  The “Kribs” reference is pointing at the youthful generation who watch the pop culture network MTV.  In the scene playing during the verse “But not me, my friends go Riz, you’re still one of us/But if I haven’t shaved they won’t sit with me on the bus,” the stand-ins playing his “friends” are males and females of different races looking to be between the ages of eighteen and thirty.    The allusion of the sitting on the bus also refers to urban setting of where the audience is most likely located, since public transportation is used in large urban centers primarily.   The line “And even the Green Cross Codes all changed” refers to the pedestrian laws in the U.K., another implication to urban living.  The song/video includes many more pieces of evidence that insinuate at the intended audience throughout the remainder of the song.

Although I do come from a large urban city in the United States and fall within the age limits, I am not a part of the intended audience of this song/music video for I do not share the same political beliefs.  However, being of the age I am and having experienced the full throttle of the September 11^th attacks, I understand the message being made.  Watching to the video along with listening to the song made me realize the effect the attacks had on people on the opposite side of the spectrum of political beliefs.

Listening to the song, in my point of view, is not enough for one to experience the full effect Riz MC is trying to get across.  The video pairs many controversial images with specific verses to expand on his opinions about the fear and “cowardice” the majority of U.S. and British citizens have because of the September 11^th terrorist attacks.

Global Warming

This National Geographic video clip explains the theory behind global warming and the effects human behavior may have on the rising world temperatures.  The audience would include students and teachers who watch National Geographic programs in the classroom, frequent viewers/readers of National Geographic programs or articles, and people interested in learning how to live a more “green” lifestyle.  This video clip appeals to me especially because my family has chosen to take the “green” initiative and strives to make the world a cleaner place.

The producers at National Geographic are trying to convince the audience that global warming is actually occurring, humans are most likely the culprits behind it, and that humans may be able to reverse its effects by doing a few simple things to reduce CO2 emissions.

The rhetorician(s) is using mainly logos to persuade its audience that global warming is occurring and certain things need to happen to try to reduce or reverse its effect on the earth.  However, pathos and ethos are used as well.  The speaker uses very specific statistics about the rise in average global temperatures over the past few decades and how the most recent years in history have been the hottest in over 400,000 years.  It also explains how the greenhouse effect occurs and the resulting hole in the ozone layer.  She states that scientists and their climate models are predicting even warmer temperatures in the future telling the audience that action obviously needs to be taken to halt the increase in temperatures.  By relaying information from professionals like the scientists above and NASA’s data about the decreasing levels of arctic sea ice, the speaker is also utilizing ethos to form her argument.  NASA and National Geographic, for that matter, are both credible, trustworthy sources with whom the intended audience is most like going to believe.   Using the National Geographic logo in the bottom right hand corner throughout the whole video clip further expands on the ethos of the argument.  Pathos is used toward the end of the video when the speaker is discussing the effects of global warming on the planet and the species inhabiting it.  She speaks in an almost sad, matter-of-fact tone throughout that portion to make the audience feel sorry.  But then at the very end of the video, when the speaker is discussing what actions humans can do that may reduce or reverse the effects of global warming,  the music and the speaker’s tone of voice change to a more cheery tone so that the audience will seem hopeful and act more progressive toward the matter at hand.

Since the rhetorician(s) is a journalist or producer for National Geographic, they definitely would be part of the target audience.  National Geographic’s motto is “Inspiring people to care about the planet”; it’s an education-based society therefore using logos in order to persuade the intended audience would be most effective.  The society prides itself in its researchers and scientists and all the work they go through in order to educate individuals about how they can help keep the earth clean and healthy.