Rhetorical Analysis Thesis Proposal

Considering his audience, the contemporary world events, and our present-day hindsight, Romney’s speech was brilliant. Considering the rhetoric that drove this genius, the tactics used to convey his message were no less remarkable. It is a special skill to be able to see the things happening in the world around you and present a convincing solution – it demands a knowledge of those events, a reciprocity towards one’s audience, and a special command of syntax to pull it all together.

            Many people will say that Romney’s speech would have been offensive towards those without a belief in God – but think about it, how many Republican’s don’t believe in God? 2007 – the year this speech was given – was the year preceding Romney’s unsuccessful run for the Republican party presidential candidate. I’m not saying that there are no atheistic Republicans, but a person that wants to win does not appeal to the minority, he or she appeals to the majority.

            So how does one appeal to the possibly offended religion-hating Republicans? Why not with logic? That seems to be Romney’s approach to the situation, and he does it well. 2007 was also a time of great political and religious upheaval throughout the world, waves that seem to be reaching their peaks today, seven year later. He brought up ISIS and other major threats to U.S. security and overall world well being, and presented at least one solution - what he thought mattered most. What might have helped him? Had the country known the horrible economic tragedy that would strike the nation in early 2008, an occurrence that would have certainly suited this great businessman better than any other person in the world.

"Faith in America"

First off, what a fantastic speech! Governor Romney gave the county a rousing concoction of rhetorical delight. For purposes of analysis, I will simply speak of his writing in the three main rhetorical categories: Logos, pathos, and ethos. Logically, the speech was valid and sound – not to mention timely – within and without. Romney began by mentioning the many threats to America’s power in the world, from China’s economy to radical Islam. He ended the speech with the same, preceded by support for the problem and followed by a solution to it.

            Pathos was certainly one of Romney’s strong-suits in this speech. His main appeal to passion and emotion was the idea of again uniting the people of the United States. He appealed to the goodness of the many different religions in America and used that to support his call for tolerance and a restoration of religious freedom – or at least putting a stop to the erosion of political freedom in the U.S. He used phrases like, “I think they underestimate the American people,” and “These are not bases for bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.” He offered a sense of empowerment to his American audience.

            Romney also provided a wealth of ethos, appealing to a number of credible and powerful sources, from the then current president to John Adams and the Founders to President Abraham Lincoln – and the quotes that he used were all excellent support for his argument to re-unify the American people and re-free the America’s religions.

Ethos in "Why I Can't Stop Reading Mormon Housewives' Blogs"

This article gives one a lot to think about. I never did find much of an argument, just speculation as to why "secular" women like her enjoy reading Mormon housewife blogs, and even the reasons she presented there were rather sparse. It more just seemed like she wanted to talk about the typical LDS woman's blog - and it was interesting to see the way she thought about them, at least so far as she portrayed in the article. As far as the ethos of her argument go, I have some thoughts.

Throughout the article I was mildly uncomfortable - I didn't know if she was attempting to insult the Church and its stalwart, "old-fashioned" women, or if she was trying to praise them. After examining the article more closely and considering her tactics, I realized that she was trying, I think sincerely, to praise these "Mormon housewives," but her obvious unease with the Church as whole seemed to undermine her argument. One such medium for this was the ethos to which she appealed; An overwhelming majority, if not all, of her quotes came from either ex-mormons or at-least-somewhat-anti-mormons. Therefore, considering that her argument, at least my understanding of her argument, was that Mormon moms make motherhood look fun and meaningful was, I think, crippled by her already biased use of ethos - a bias that did not support her argument with possible counter-arguments and their respective rebuttals, but weakened her argument by undermining her credibility.

Over all I very much appreciated her insights and comments, but I wish they would have been more believable - an accomplishment that could have easily been done had she wanted to and had she used her ethos in a supportive manner.

Op-ed Reflections

To follow Professor Spooner's prompt,

What writing strategies worked for you?

The free-write really helped me. It was fun to just write and learn and think while I was writing - maybe action is one of the most potent of muses.

What didn't?

Looking at other peoples' theses didn't seem to help. I just don't think that theses are super transferable, and most principles, which probably would be transferable, are to obscure to nail down as the author used them.

What were your expectations in writing the Op-ed?

I thought that it would be a lot more difficult than it was. I'm pleasantly surprised at the ease with which this paper was completed, though I guess I'll have to wait until I get a grade to fully realize my feelings toward it.

Those Killers Called Quants

Style Academy seems great! I especially enjoyed the sentence imitation and combination lessons; these are things that I used to practice often in my writing, but as I have progressed through school and my major I have had too many professors that attempt to make me write in their style - one of the biggest annoyances that I think any student experiences. I used to write sentences like Teale's, but they just wanted the bare-boned ideas, nothing, ornamental or ordinary, on the side. Go ahead Professor, kill my creativity; steal, stab, suffocate it! I didn't need it anyways, right? Wrong! This short lesson helped me to remember how fun it was when I once found writing fun...fun again I now plan to find it.

Thesis Proposal

Many people seem to think that fewer limits is equal to more freedom; this may seem logical, but it is not only entirely illogical, it is often untrue.

The truth of transcendental numbers, discovered by the great logician George Cantor, tells us that this is not the case in the realm of numbers or sets, and, following a line of reasoning similar to the perpetuates of the Catastrophe Theory applied to sociological phenomenon, neither is this the case in society.

If this is the case on a universal level, the same principle may be successfully applied to any specific issue within that universe’s realm. Marriage is one of these issues: The traditional family has begun to fall apart as society attacks it and its values. As the family – a unit initiated and facilitated by marriage – is razed by so many “smarter-than-thee” “intellectuals,” we find more jails being erected and more individuals being corrected – a phenomenon entirely uncoincidental. My claim is that this is because the basic ideology of U.S. political theory is democracy, and democracy is based upon the principle of putting right before good. The U.S. is not, however, a democracy. It is a republic, and as such the good must be considered at least equal to, if not more than, the importance of right.  Gays say it is their right to be wed the same as any straight couple. I am against that idea only to degree, and that degree being the commonality of the virtues of any two individual marriages being considered and the authority by which the partnership is joined. This, however, should not be the argument that is discussed among our policy makers. The concern should not be that of rights, but that of the communal good. How we define good is essential to getting this issue straight, and the best way to do so is discuss the things that may or not be good – two things in particular: A community’s social and scientific advancement, a community’s endearment of peace and non-offensive violence, and the community’s economic success, development, and reliance. All of these things depend on people – the success of any of these things depends on the capacities of these people to discern between right and wrong, to function at a high cognitive level, and to care about people. There will always be those that oppose community good if it goes against their own individual desires, so all parties ought to be at least appeased by the policy that is arranged.

Suggested policy change: For all gay couples, if they can show that they have equal financial responsibilities to a married couple under the U.S. jurisdiction, they may receive equal tax allowances, but not a marriage certificate. This ought to be implemented via civil union and redacted upon dissolution of the same union. The gay couple is not to be allowed to adopt. A child needs both a mother and a father in his or her family, and even if this not at all available, the child must have a clear idea that this is the natural order of life, and this principle – as an idea or a reality – must never be undermined by a community’s leaders.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/1997/12/29/236718/wrestlings-dirty-secret-the-ncaa-should-be-called-on-the-mat-after-three-collegians-died-trying-to-shed-pounds

An excellent prescriptive claim and a closing paragraph that ought to put even the meanest of those fools to shame.

The fact that this author had experience with the topic made it even more accessible as reader because I automatically allowed myself to see this article as validated.

How might we play on our experiences to add this power to our op-eds?

Gay Rights vs Gun Rights

Do our rights have to be right?

By any arbitrary system, not necessarily.

What is the government's job - its duty to its citizens? To protect us and our rights, right? Right. Here's an idea: Restrictions can actually bring the entity on which they are placed more freedom. About a century ago, a German man by the surname of Gödel formulated a theory - which became a scientific law - dealing with a phenomenon called transfinite numbers. This whole idea evolved around, and eventually proved the fact that, not all infinities are equal. Take the counting number 1 - infinity, for instance. Now compare those with the rational numbers between the numbers 1 and 2. The latter will always be more infinite, because for every counting number from 1 to infinity, there will always be at least one more rational number between the numbers 1 and 2; the two sets do not hold a one-to-one correspondence with each other.

"So you're saying that there are more numbers (i.e. a larger opportunity bank) when you restrict your set to any number within one number than any number I could ever count to?"

"Basically, yes. And I'm saying the same thing about laws too."

As soon as a government, like our own, with a set of seemingly ethical laws begins to move away from this set into a set that claims "infinity," it decreases the potential of its opportunity bank. Don't believe me? Look at two things: History and science. Societal declination into debauchery never ends well, at least for itself.

I think an argument that my own political views (which are anti-homsexual marriage and qualified pro-second amendment stances) are contradictory. I don't think they are though, because these to things are fundamentally different: Pro-homosexual marriage lobbyists are fighting against a law in our set whereas pro-gun rights lobbyists are fighting for a law already in our set. If our set (the Constitution) is good, then it is a set that will only become more limited as people try to make it more accommodating.

I will certainly talk about societies that have historically found themselves facing similar choices, and when the people and/or leaders of that society choose debauchery over chastity, they always fall, "and great is the fall thereof." I will probably use the Song Dynasty of Medieval China as a prime example. Ancient Israel would be good as well. And Babylon, though there is some academic debate about whether that even existed, so it may not be the strongest premise possible.

So, in a very specific, non-arbitrary way, yes - our rights do have to be right.

I've been wanting to write on this idea for a long time now. I'm excited to finally get it out of my head and heart and on to some paper! Any feedback would be well appreciated.

My name is Jacob Valentine.

Unfortunately, I did not take this class when I was a freshman, so now I am a third-year student in a first-year writing course... Nevertheless, I'm excited and hope to learn some new things as well as hone a few skills. I am a China Studies Major and a Logic (Philosophy) minor. I speak 5 languages - English, Mandarin, Tagalog, Bikol, and German. I served a mission in The Philippines and have been planning to attend law school since returning home, but my mind may be changing. I was married just over a year ago, and my wife and I had our first baby (the cutest little girl alive) almost four months ago. I'm excited to get to know you all!