Common Sense

I saw my audience as college students who were interested in the law behind gay marriage and wanted to learn more. My audience did not necessarily have a specific viewpoint because I thought that my blog and video would be useful in educating the already pro-same-sex marriage side as well as possibly convince or make individuals who were against it think about the topic in a different light. I tried to stay away from any religious references and over-the-top statements so that my blog remained objective. Another way I adapted my blog to the audience was by posting more than just about case law, such as the dictionary definition post and making my video more emotionally charged than factually based.   

My goal was to show how laws in the United States are prone to accepting same-sex marriage. I also wanted to show why laws restricting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. It is my firm belief that same-sex marriage will become constitutional on a federal level during my lifetime. I hope that by writing about it and allowing more people to become aware of the realities behind it that this process of legalization will quicken. For many people same-sex marriage is a subject that is preferably avoided. However if more information is out there for the subject to enter as politicians often describe “the dinner table discussion,” then more awareness and progress will be made. It was my goal to facilitate these discussions by writing about quotes and possibilities that would spark interest.

I organized my blog to be reader friendly. I varied lengths of posts, and tried to touch on a variety of subjects. The links on my blog were also added to allow the reader to go beyond what I wrote. Every case I referenced has a link to its written opinion so that anyone who stops by can find something that I may have left out or will be able to better understand the context of my arguments. Same-sex marriage is also an ongoing and heated issue so I included a news category in my blog roll so that readers would be reminded to look for what is going on today and tomorrow. I think that this is important because it makes my blog not just about cases that happened but about cases that could happen and use the precedents set in the ones I wrote about to ultimately re-write our countries definition of marriage.  

The commonplace of equality, a friendly and scholarly ethos, and a caring pathos were rhetorical strategies that I employed into my blog. It seemed logical that if I could come across onto the reader as a personable and educated person, then they would be more prone to reading further into the subject and my position on it. It appears that too often only the radicals of both sides of the debate are depicted in the media. Obviously this may sell more papers or magazines but it is unhealthy for America. I wanted to develop an environment on the blogosphere where ideas could be exchanged freely and civilly on the subject.

Every picture I used was creative commons licensed except for the one with the Griswold v. Connecticut cover. I used creative commons licensed flikr pictures to avoid any “grey areas” in the realm of copyright infringement and the one picture that I did use was not taking away from any revenue the picture may have otherwise brought in and it was only used for a small period of time. Because of this, it appeared to follow fair use guidelines.

To make this project more appealing and effective I would have made more videos and tried and find how our laws compared to other countries. I would also go into the issue from a scientific standpoint. As far as making this site more active, I think that through my connections with the Obama campaign and with pro-LGBT groups on campus I may be able to reach an audience susceptible listing to my message. Ideally I would at least like to reach our campus group SPECTRUM and have them take a look at my blog so that it may be expanded with their help. However if this blog is to become a permanent referencing tool I think that it will need to become more professionally done and go beyond just a wordpress blog.

There was a great deal that I learned from this project. Not only did I understand more about the cases behind the topic of same-sex marriage by reading through the case law behind them, but I also was able to find the case law against same-sex marriage and the arguments behind them. Obviously I do not find them as credible, however it is interesting to think about how they can be defeated. Also by mistake I found the scientific premises against same-sex marriage (and almost ended up wrongfully endorsing them) which allowed me to at least get a glimpse at how someone may counterpoint my arguments in the future. This will help me at least start a new conversation with those who confront me about my beliefs, and maybe start a period of political change in the United States.

Keeping a blog is very helpful in shaping one’s thoughts and contentions. My blog had an obvious political purpose due to my position during this past election season. I learned that when blogging, I was able to focus on a topic and learn little bits about myself and the topic at the same time. I viewed my audience as the blogosphere in general, with the knowledge that my teacher and classmates were the only ones who would actually read my works, but it was more fun to write to a broader audience. This allowed me to feel as if everyone was reading what I had to say, and allowed me to sculpt my posts around the idea that they would be viewed more critically.

               The purpose of my blog was to express a partisan view in a way that depicted my ideas as (as my blog title indicates) common sense. Thomas Pain is one of my all-time favorite writers. His style is something I try and emulate and base my thoughts off of. Like Pain, at times I was blunt. There was no doubt in my blog that I held little contempt for John McCain and Sarah Palin’s political views. But I also tried to point out arguments that were helpful. I tried to initiate political activism and convince any undecided person in our class why Obama’s plans would help them.

               The processes I used in writing my blog were similar to the ones I use when I write a paper that is going to be graded. I would free write about an idea, then research the idea, make a new draft, and then revise it a couple of times. It is hard for me to free write and be done with something, or to just write about a topic and leave my original thoughts as they appear on paper. I noticed that our class used the “late night free write” tactic commonly, but it did not fit the trustworthy and scholarly ethos I had built in my blog.

               Even though I did not use a lot of the tactics such as the free writing and video uploading that others in the class used, I was inspired by variety of styles encompassed by the class blogs. Other blogs I found interesting included the daily kos and fivethirtyeight. I thought fivethirtyeight was a unique blog because its posts were not even its main attraction. Instead, the blog consisted of political projections and various polls. The daily kos was also inspiring because it was also a liberal leaning political blog. I think that its success was caused because of its bold style and usually more polished entries. From these two blogs I pulled many of my ideas and styles.

               I think that the editorials that I wrote were the two best posts. The one for the Miami Student about Barack Obama’s energy policy was effective because of its progression of time and its conciseness (which I often lack). The letter to the editor I wrote to my hometown paper also forced me to be concise due to its word restraints, but I think that the ethos portrayed in that piece was honest and my contentious in that letter were very heartfelt.  It was reassuring to hear that it even received some response from conservatives within my town, and even a response article that accused me of thinking that I was “smarter than God.” Contrary to popular belief, other views do exist in Findlay. This is evidenced by my mother who called me the day after my letter appeared in the paper to tell me that five random Findlay-ites called our house and expressed their appreciation for my thoughts. My post of “Government Spending Done Responsibly” was probably my third best post because it was well researched and argued a point not made on a national scale.

1)     What are the five most important things that you learned in this class, and how did you learn them?

1. Understanding how important kairotic moments come about and what they are; 2. Understanding ethos and how ethos differs from one person to another; 3. Analyzing new media (especially works on you tube) in a literary manor; 4. Comparing successful rhetorical strategies in the political realm; 5. Learning how blogs fit into the communication of ideas and their roles as rhetorical devices.

I learned these five things mostly by doing them. When I analyzed political speeches, I began to appreciate their content and rhetorical devices much more than reading about the devises themselves. Also, this was the first time I had ever kept a blog. In doing this I was able to understand how an effective blog is formed and that ethos is an important part of it. The election and the new media – YouTube clips, daily show episodes, etc. – were important in allowing me to understand kairotic moments and how some issues and devices are much more successful during specific moments in time.

Reading the textbook and rhetorical analysis were also helpful. At the onset of this class I had little to no knowledge about new media and rhetorical devices. However after reading these scholarly works I developed a base on which I could build my thoughts and ideas. Overall, they effectively and continually served as a guide in the way I was able to think about the class.  

2)     What questions remain unanswered for you about rhetoric, politics, and/or new media?

I still do not understand the complexity of the devices we read about and how they can be applied most effectively. Also, it is still unclear if everything is a literary work. It seems that some videos or works are random and serve little or no rhetorical purpose. I do not know if this is possible, but it seems that it must be. The development of rhetoric and how it has changed and evolved throughout history is something that I wondered about, but that is probably outside the scope of this class.  

3)     How have your daily writing, reading, viewing, and/or research practices changed as a result of things you have learned from this class?

I have definitely changed the way I look at and use new media in my day to day life. I blog on a regular basis, and read and watch new media much more frequently.  This has made me much more informed about the happenings of the outside world (via the blogs written by people living in other countries), and a glimpse into the minds of those who hold opinions contrary to my own.

4)     What does it mean to be an engaged citizen in a democracy?

I think that an engaged citizen is someone who goes out of his or her way to learn about the issues affecting their lives and the lives of others. In today’s world this means reading and writing to develop and display ones thoughts.

     My audience will be the apathetic college students who do not care whether or not homosexuals have the right to marry. It is not my goal to convince those who hold a contrary opinion to mine, but to convince those who do not have an opinion. I think that there are plenty of these students out there who if the information were given to them they would read it. The issue of gay marriage is not going to go away and I think that having the facts available for students and other apathetic Americans wondering around the blogosphere to read is important.

     Even those students who are looking for references on the web about how to sculpt an argument for gay marriage could use my blog. I also think that there are a lot of students who are confused about the issue because there is a large generational difference between parents and children of the current generation. Those under thirty are much more likely to support gay marriage than there parents, and this often leaves children confused about what position is correct. Then my audience may grow when the parents of the children who question their parents, and hopefully allow the parents to take a more open stance on the issue.

     This blog can also be used as a reference to those who are supporters of gay marriage but do not have a solid factual argument of why. Often I see people who think that gay marriage is right or wrong based on their own personal beliefs but there is not much more to back their ideas, so my blog will serve as a guide for them. And for political science students who enjoy looking on the web for facts about civil rights and civil liberties (like me : ) ).

The passing of proposition eight in California and similar bans on gay marriage in Florida, and Arizona are preposterous infringements of American civil liberties and individual rights. It is important to understand how American’s feel about the issue and what allowed these bans to pass. My project will include a blog outlining the history behind the major legislation in the United States dealing with gay marriage and describing the legal standing of the issue, especially in the case of the Defensive of Marriage Act. In addition, I will include a summary of the current laws in place on the regulation of gay marriage in the 50 states. Most importantly, I will give an example of what can be done to reverse these rulings and discuss the viability of their reversal due to the likely appointments to the Supreme Court by President Elect Barack Obama.

My argument will focus on the major documents of our nation’s founding and the jurisprudence that has lead up to our current laws on the subject. I will include arguments sculpted by the congressional research service and other academic sources to educate my audience (which for now will be our class and those who come about my work on the blogosphere) about why our current legislation is not just wrong, but unconstitutional.

The main question my project will address is whether or not the government has the right to dictate the definition of a state marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It is important to know the roots of the argument and to look at it from a non-religious standpoint, so that an accurate picture can be developed about whether or not the right course of action is being taken. The main purpose of my project will be more for educational than persuasive purposes, however I will clearly state my position on the issue after the educational premises have been laid out.

      This weekend I attended a protest in Cincinnati about the passing of Proposition 8 in California that passed and effectively terminated the rights of homosexual couples to marry. This was a subject I felt was largely ignored during the election and needs to be addressed more strongly. It made me cringe when Sarah Palin said that she would “tolerate” gay and lesbian couples instead of accept them whole heartedly, when she spoke about the issue in the Vice Presidential Debate. Furthermore, it saddened me that Barack Obama could not take the stance of supporting gay marriage for fear of losing the election (or at least that is my belief of why he only went as far as supporting civil unions). But what disturbs me the most are those people who go out of their way to try and restrict other people’s rights when their actions do not affect them directly if at all.

               Gay marriage is a matter of equality and what is more commonplace than the idea that “all men (and women) are created equal.” I also think that it is a matter of love as Keith Olbermann described in his Special Comment Segment last week. (You can watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srKS0r5pVg.) And even though Keith Olbermann has been known for his excessive “Bush/ Republican bashing statements” that sometimes go beyond what I agree with;  I am glad that at least one station in the national scene expressed my opinion on this matter. I don’t think that this should be a partisan issue and I definitely don’t think it should be an issue as it seems clear to me that everyone should have the same rights with the same name regardless of race, age, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

      Like Keith Olbermann I have no personal ties to the subject as I am not homosexual and I only have a few friends who are but none of them are that close to me.  This distinction adds to the ethos in Olbermann’s Special Comment. In addition, his examples of past discrimination within the marriages of slaves and between whites and blacks are persuasive because it shows how we have been wrong about marriage in the past and that we are wrong again. Hopefully the kairotic moment of the passage of proposition 8 which allowed Olbermann to address this issue allows it to stay on the national scene where progress toward equality can be made.

      His Special Comment segment was also effective from a rhetorical standpoint because of the tone and setting in which he conducted his opinion. His serious and emotional tone made this video persuasive because Olbermann is usually over the top with his gestures and voice inflection, but this issue forced him to address it with less of his normal antics, so that he could be taken seriously. His professional look, tone, and the trustworthiness associated with the national news setting made this one of the most persuasive news segments I have seen for a long time. Unfortunately, Olbermann is addressing an already largely liberal audience who is already likely to agree with his stances. However, if more national figures could stand up and address this issue with sincere emotion, I think that America would become a better place.

     I come from a very conservative town where Barack Obama recently won only 37% of the vote, and that was about as good as anyone could have expected him to do in Findlay, Ohio. Earlier in the year my hometown was featured in a Washington Post article depicting a couple of working Findlay citizens as ignorant voters who believed all the rumors about Obama being a Muslim and even one believing that he was “possibly gay.” So, not surprisingly after the election more people from rural Findlay wrote in and expressed their divisive opinions on how President Obama will ruin our country. So, I wrote this editorial in response, and feel free to go to http://www.thecourier.com/ and check out the editorials that I am responding to because they are about as bad as they get.

A Message of Hope to the Citizens of Findlay, Ohio

As I began traveling door to door for the Barack Obama campaign, meeting Americans who were undercut by our country’s failed economic policies, I realized how important it was that Obama’s proposals be implemented to give these people a chance to achieve the American Dream. Unfortunately, during the course of this election and sadly even after its conclusion, the editorial pages of The Courier have reflected the divisive and often false opinions existing in our city.

 Instead of listening to Senator John McCain properly denounce unfounded rumors about Barack Obama being a Muslim, many in Findlay refused to believe. Many also refuse to believe that Democrats want to reduce the number of abortions because when Senator Obama released a plan to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in the United States, many of my fellow Pro-Life Obama supporters were considered “baby killers” by those in Findlay.  

Then, little was said about John McCain’s plan to tax employer based health care as income and to comparatively insure 11.2 million fewer Americans; while Barack Obama’s proposal to lower the cost of health care premiums, with a provision allowing citizens to keep their current plans and doctors was equivocated to socialism.  

And, while comprehensive reports indicated that not only would John McCain’s tax plan leave working middle class Findlay-ites paying more in taxes than under Obama’s plan, but eventually everyone would have to pay for the estimated 5.6 trillion more dollars John McCain’s economic plan (compared to Obama’s) would add to the national debt; opinions in Findlay stated that Obama would raise their taxes when his plan effectively reduced taxes for a majority of them.

Furthermore, the idea that “Barack Obama does not support Israel” is simply false. I recently attended the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Summit in Chicago where Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisor received a standing ovation from the most Pro-Israel audience you could imagine.

Let’s learn from our encounter with the Washington Post and construct opinions based on facts. And finally, let’s hope that President Obama will end the divisive partisanship evidenced in this paper’s recent opinions and reach across the aisle to serve a plurality of interests and restore our image as a world leader.

The Boston Globe came to Miami to do a piece about the political climate on campus. I had the privilege of participating in the interviews they conducted and enjoyed sharing my experiences along with my friends about the positive aspects of the Obama campaign on college campuses. Within two days they had put together a remix of the interviews they conducted with us and the college republicans.

The segment accurately showed the progress the college democrats have made on campus, especially in regards to informing the campus about early voting. The college republican girl who was interviewed said that early voting was “unconstitutional” but she did not know why. I thought that it was interesting that the party who would benefit from lower turnout would call a law that prevents voter suppression “unconstitutional” when that law was deemed constitutional by the Ohio Supreme Courts’ seven conservative justices.

 I just was to put a plug in here for the two liberal judges running in Ohio this year, Joseph D. Russo and Peter M. Sikora. I have had the privilege of meeting both men and they have very honorable backgrounds. If you are voting in Ohio please consider that all of our justices come from one party and that they have ruled 65% of the time with companies who helped get them onto the court. This is as fair and balanced as Fox News and so we need to return fundamental fairness to our judicial system and Joseph D. Russo and Peter M. Sikora can do just that.

The Boston Globe piece on Miami shows how newspapers are adapting to using new media to their advantage. Within two days they were able to assemble a documentary and an article about a political story that is very unique.  Their ability to quickly assemble news stories and make them unique appeals to the new audience of media views and news readers. I think that this trend will continue and that soon there will be a larger focus on personalized news rather than blanket national stories.

Ever since leading figures have existed there have been people to make fun of their flaws, especially on the rhetorical side. In pointing out their rhetorical flaws some truth is exposed. The purpose of my remix was to expose republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s lack of depth by using the Family Guy character Peter Griffin who is known for his lack of rhetorical apprehension. I tried to bolster this position by adding in CNN’s senior political analyst Jack Cafferty’s reaction where he blatantly states that she is not qualified and then use a logical progression of slides at the end to persuade my audience to vote for my candidate.

Personally I hoped that I could reach a new audience who may not pay close attention to the election (i.e. couch potato cartoon watchers who would YouTube family guy on a regular basis) and show them an important moment in this election season. Additionally, I tried to make the piece likeable and Saturday Night Live like so that it would possibly become viral and be seen by a larger audience, including the people who (like me) pay very close attention to politics and simply enjoy good political humor.

               This project really helped me realize the importance of kairotic moments in political discourse. I knew that the kairotic moment for my parody was critical and that already I was about a week and a half behind the prime moment for its release. However, Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin has continued to receive media attention, and so the moment had not completely passed. In fact, it was receiving more and more attention by some comedians like Seth MacFarlane who just happened to stop by our University.

When Seth McFarlane came to Miami as a representative for the Obama campaign, he highlighted this interview and I knew that it had potential. First of all, Family Guy is a show that reaches a wide audience. In addition, by using tenured political analyst Jack Cafferty’s reaction to the interview I thought that I could add a bit of trustworthy ethos within the parody and attract another group of people to view my remix.

The process I used to construct my remix was the same process I would use to write a paper or post something to my blog. It mainly consisted of searching around YouTube until I found the right mix of video footage to create a news real that would be funny and effective. This was similar to researching in a library for the best sources or online except I was looking for non-typed sources.  It was my goal to make a remix that would benefit the Obama campaign by poking fun at Sarah Palin, and so I looked for related sources to sculpt an overall idea (which would compare to a thesis in a paper).  After my idea was developed and reviewed by my teacher and friends I tried to match the footage and the audio up as well as I could and cut out parts that were unnecessary. This was a long process because in multimedia settings a lack of attention to detail could lead to a very poor looking remix. I wanted this remix to be thought of as professional (which I think that Windows Movie Maker allowed for) so that viewers would not notice any defects, which is important in an age where we are accustomed to smooth transitioning pieces. After about a week and a half of solid revision, my remix was complete.

               Once the segment was completed, I thought about how I could best circulate my idea. I chose YouTube as my primary medium for circulation and it has turned out well. It was and still is exciting to see how fast my remix has spread. To facilitate this process, I tried to paste the video as a response to similar videos and on other mediums such as Facebook and school list serves. This has worked very well, as by the time this paper is finished, over 2000 people will have viewed my work (and it has received an average five star rating).

               I think that the reason my remix was successful (at least to some extent) was because of the juxtaposition of reality and “make believe.” Reality adds a trustworthy and familiar ethos to a particular moment and then the make believe aspect adds in an exaggeration. In my remix I tried to point out how even thought one may think that the words Peter Griffin (the make believe) are using is an exaggeration of what Sarah Palin said, it actually is not. Therefore, I developed an enthymeme where the premises would read in the following order: 1) Peter Griffin is unintelligent 2) Sarah Palin’s words matched Peter Griffin’s character 3) So, Sarah Palin must be unintelligent and therefore not fit to serve as vice president. The last three slides of my remix were used to highlight this enthymeme and add a logos where viewers would come to the same conclusion I did.

Finally, as with any work where you use parts of other people’s works I thought a good deal about how to make sure that this remix would follow copyright law. There were a couple of ways in which I tried to make sure that this remix stayed within the rules, but it was by far the hardest part of constructing my remix. First, I used music from freeplaymusic.com which can be legally shared. Second, my clips were all very short, chopped up, slowed down, or rearranged so that they were within the “fair use” regulations described in class. Third, Seth McFarlane’s audio was taken from a public speech and put to a random Family Guy segment which he had not intended it to be used with. Finally, Jack Cafferty’s reaction was actually to a different part of the same interview, so that was unique in itself. Overall my remix combined my favorite reactions to Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric so that the most effective message could be conveyed.

This message was effective because my remix followed important literary ideas. I relied on an effective enthymeme, a fitting tone, the right kairotic moment, and an acquired audience. Juxtaposition was also discussed in our book and it added an important aspect, but I think that new terms need to be invented to more thoroughly explain this remix. Obviously the tone Peter Griffin uses is associated with being unintelligent, yet there is not a word that I know of that would explain using someone else’s voice as another’s to emphasize a flaw within the original person’s character. In addition, whole new theories need to be invented such as “The Daily Show” theory we discussed in class to explain remix and multimedia as literary works.

 Senator McCain has said that he would put a freeze on all federal spending other than on the military to balance the budget. This means Senator McCain will not increase spending even if it means your education, health, and welfare deteriorate as a result. Albeit this will bring “change” to the United States; however it will not be change in a good way. It will be change that adds fuel to an already raging fire. The fire being our terrible economic situation and the fuel being that instead of helping the millions of Americans affected by it, we will cut out any help that they could possibly receive in the forms of Medicare, Medicaid, or welfare subsidies.

Senator Barack Obama understands that only 7% of our national budget goes to education and the states are left to fund the rest. On top of that, No Child Left Behind has rewarded schools that are doing well and punished those that are doing poorly by not giving them the aid that they need. Senator Obama knows that this does not make sense and that we need to give money to the schools that are failing, like those he saw on the south side of Chicago as a community organizer, so that they can compete with the other schools on a level playing field.

With enhanced focuses on early childhood education and giving a 4000 dollar tax credit to make college affordable, Barack Obama clearly is putting the people of the United States first. Also he knows that government spending is out of control and that is why his plan will cost American an estimated 5 trillion dollars less than John McCain’s plan. Furthermore, Barack Obama will not sign a bill into law until it has laid on his desk for five days to be properly analyzed by the media and via the public through the “Google for government” program he helped create with bipartisan help. Actions such as this one will help bring more transparency to government and prevent more bridges to nowhere.  

It was in fact Senator Obama who passed the Transparency act in the Senate, which indicates that he is committed to reducing wasteful spending. Senator McCain uses the same sound bite but when explaining how he would cut government spending he said that he will get rid of earmarks altogether. This is absurd! Barack Obama said that he will not allow unnecessary earmarks, but he also understands that earmarks can be used to improve people’s lives. By saying that he will not allow any earmarks Senator McCain is saying “No!” to repairing bridges that need repaired for the safety of everyday drivers, “No!” to building new community centers in rundown urban neighborhoods, “No!” to flood mitigation programs in cities that have lost millions of dollars in capital (like my home town of Findlay, Ohio), and “No!” to your future.