Letting Go of My "Baby"

So far our group has been doing a stellar job. We are blending all our individual work well together and all seem to be pulling our own weight thus far. We have met three times as a group, the first to discuss topic choice, the second to discuss resources and preliminary research, and the third to blend our individual pieces for our proposal. It has not been difficult to find a meeting time outside the scheduled class time. I found the scheduled class time was a very productive time for our group because we all had to have that time frame free for class anyway. I would love to see more sessions like that.

One thing about the project that I will admit is that I was a bit surprised when I wasn’t the one to propose our topic. I agreed to the topic without flinching but I still have my reservations. I worry that I may not be able to take a step back from the work my group members are doing. I am already invested in our project through my involvement with United Council, the state student government. This is a big undertaking for our group and something this big would usually be taken on by people experienced with policies, student government, etc. I worry that my group members might very quickly feel like they are in over their heads and not know how to swim to the surface.

In talking with our instructor about my concerns I feel more confident in our project and how I will handle letting go of my “baby”, so to speak. I also have been thinking that since my group as a whole does not intend to use our project in order to action as a group, I want to pass on the project to the right people who can use it in there efforts to make sure the revisions are lawful and fair. Therefore, I am planning on talking with the other invested individuals that will have the finished project in the future and seeing what they need from us and what they would like our group to take on. Take from their plate and make it part of our project. I have yet to clear this with my group but I don’t see any potential problems. Besides that, everything in the group is going well so far.

Fight to Be the Strongest Link

 To be honest, I would always much prefer to work on assignments individually. First, I am a huge procrastinator, and it seems that some of my best work is created when I am under the pressure of a deadline. Unfortunately, with a group, I am required to keep up with milestone deadlines otherwise the group would simply not function. I guess that this could also be a good thing because then I will become far less stressed when it comes down to the wire. Furthermore, it is difficult for me to compromise on things because if I see something going or turning out a certain way I have a very difficult time accepting that it is not going to end up that way. I am most definitely a stubborn person. Knowing this, I try to go into group projects with a positive attitude and understanding that I will have to meet certain expectations that I generally would not fulfill if I worked on my own.

Coming together for the first time, our group was quick to decide that we would go with Krista’s idea about the revisions to Chapters 17 and 18 that we discussed in class. We decided that we would make the initial meeting brief because we had determined our topic and could do very little without research to fill in the gaps of our understanding of the topic. Therefore, we decided to reconvene during the next class period with research in hand to have a clearer idea of what our emphasis for the project would be. It is always very frustrating when all the group members do not necessarily fulfill their assigned obligations. I think it is important to remember when working with a group that failure to complete something is a huge detriment to the whole team and does not only affect the individual. A team can only be as strong as its weakest link. I hope that throughout the semester all of the members in my group fight to be the strongest link rather than just avoid being the weakest link.

All in all, the division of work makes the project much more feasible and enjoyable. Although it is not my ideal situation, I will do my best to fight to be the strongest link and really collaborate to complete a great project. Hopefully, there will be few hiccups in the future. However, with each one, we will just need to remember to compromise and come to fair solutions in order to be successful and create one incredible final project. I hope that I continue to remember along with my other cohort mates that compromise is going to be key and that being stubborn will not allow the cohort to be successful. I know I don't want to be "one fry short of a happy meal" as it was put on The Weakest Link on NBC.

Heads up on our group project

Our group session went quite successfully, regarding that we didn't have to go through a lot of fuss on deciding the topic for the project. The all four of us were quite satisfied with the topic on UWS policy chapters 17&18 - it was directly influential on our lives as UW students, and nevertheless not many of the students on campus are well aware of the ongoing debates of the change of policies, how it would affect our lives and whatnot. So I guess I could say that our group started off easily and smoothly.
For our second group meeting on thursday, we met prepared with the background knowledge of the topic. Then we discussed how we could divide the work load among us four, and how we could work on our drafts for the research proposal. After lots of discussion we were able to narrow down arguments for each sides of the debate, and decided to split up into two groups--Jessie and Krista for con and Ally and me for pro-- to work on the drafts.
Our third group meeting was held on sunday evening, in a group study room in College library. We gathered with each of our drafts, and worked together to organize them together into a whole coherent body. And for wednesday, we're meeting with our intros and conclusions and will be finishing up our proposal.
After discussing about the process in class today, I feel like that our group has done a pretty nice job in both working individually and collaboratively. I truly hope that our group could continue to do well and get done an awesome project at the end of the semester. :)

Working with the Group

While meeting with my cohort, we came to the conclusion rather quickly that we would work together to inform/ persuade on the topic of chapters 17 & 18. We all feel strongly against these chapters and its revisions, for we feel it is unfair to penalize a student for misconduct off camus grounds that has no association with ones academic career. After meeting and discussing these chaters in depth, we decided to split up viewpoint into pros and cons. While me and Krista focused on the cons, Nam and Ally focused on the pros. We each did our own reasearch and read up on the topic, writing our viewpoints down after becoming informaed. We then reconvened to go over our parts and combine them into a final proposal. Overall, each one of us worked collaboritvely well together and were able to listen to one anothers ideas which furthered discussion and ideas for the projects future. With this open forum, we were all able to utilize our creativity and explore options that we may not have explored on our own. Together, we successfully have focused our attention on a topic we are all passionate about.

Selling your candidate

Political campaigns today have become more stimulating and vigorous than ever. Advertisements often openly criticize - and to a certain degree disparage - rival candidates, and you could simply find political propaganda everywhere especially as the time nears the election. You turn on your television to watch your favorite TV show, say, Grey's Anatomy and you'll be watching Obama's ad in the first interval and McCain's in the second. Things are not so much different in Korea as well - last year, when we had our presidential election, whenever I logged onto Naver, which is like the Korean google (the largest search engine in Korea), I was always faced with one of the candidates' flash ads with annoying popular songs as back ground musics.

Engaging in conversations here in Madison, not only in class but also out of class, I get an impression that the majority of the people are very interested in politics - especially the upcoming election. But frankly, for a foreigner like me, especially since I have only been here for a year now, U.S. politics and the presidential election are not the most interesting stuff for me to "dig" into. Not that I am a very apathetic person to politics - I am actually quite interested in politics I even interned for a congresswoman during my senior year in highschool, but perhaps because I'm unaware of much of the political and economic history and circumstances, the U.S. politics doesn't come to me as the most interesting topic. If I were to choose between the presidential debate and Grey's Anatomy, (well, I'd choose the presidential debate now because through engaging in this class I have gained knowledge and interest in the field) I would have chosen Grey's Anatomy for sure - and although I believe a lot of people here in Madison would prefer to watch the debate, I wouldn't count on the vast majority of the people to do the same.

The candidates should of course campaign for the votes of the people who are actually interested in politics and who actually care about their policies and political stance, but as much as this is important, it is also important to campaign for the people who are less engaged and less interested - since their votes count equally as well and I assure you, their numbers aren't so small. I am uncertain of how the numbers are here in the U.S., but in Korea the voter turnout is lower than ever, yet it is still getting lower and lower every time. This clearly shows how little people are engaged in politics and how apathetic they are. Then how do the candidates appeal to the less interested? This is where the pop culture comes in, ta-da. The candidates, or should I say their campaign managers, were smart enough to merge the two in order to appeal to their target.

I do not believe that merging pop culture and politics contribute to politics itself, it degrades the dignity of politics and undermines democracy because by propagating to those who are not interested with stimulating images and sounds and winning their votes would devalue the truly meaningful votes made by the politically aware. However, I must say that it does contribute in an aspect that it attracts people and motivates them to 'start' to get interested, and of course, in that it makes people vote more - after all, that's what counts, right?

Politics for Dummies

In a perfect world, politics wouldn’t need to be “dumbed” down so that a majority of Americans could understand. In a perfect world, people would be interested in politics and not be apathetic. Everyone would not have to be politically savvy, but know enough to understand what is happening with our government.

Recently, with the coming elections, we have been seeing politics distorted and made seemingly unimportant by the merging of politics with popular culture. In a John McCain presidential campaign commercial, Sen. Barack Obama is compared to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Putting the fact that there is no connection between the ladies and Obama aside, the commercial is forcefully merging pop culture and politics in a way that doesn’t even make sense.

The commercial is trying to appeal to the people who know who the ladies are but do not know who Obama is. The commercial says that Obama should be compared to the ladies because he is just like them, a celebrity. I would imagine that a person not knowing who Obama is but does know who the ladies are, and sees them in a positive light, would vote for him because he is associated with the ladies. If a person knows who the ladies are but also knows there history and the controversy surrounding them, I would imagine that the person is smart enough to know the McCain commercial is a bunch of BS. In either case, by “approving this message”, McCain is saying that he thinks America is too ignorant to understand politics without it being compared to pop culture.

I personally don’t think that America is ignorant; I think America doesn’t care as much as it should. The apathy is unavoidable and can be seen around every corner. By merging pop culture and politics, pride and a sense of dignity is lost. I wonder, “Has it really gotten that bad?” “Is America really that ignorant when it comes to politics?” “Is it really up to that small percentage of the population to keep America running?”

When politics are merged with pop culture, not only does it feel like the pride of democracy shrivels up and dies, but also democracy is undermined. This country was built to be a democracy and I have heard America and democracy being used interchangeably. The merging of politics and pop culture is crushing the democratic spirit. Political equality is being questioned when politicians are compared to celebrities…by other politicians. We as a country, current politicians included, forget that we the people put those politicians into place. We voted, we decided.

I feel severely disrespected by a politician, or anyone for that matter, that thinks I’m not smart enough to understand politics without it being put in “pop culture” language. If politicians feel it necessary to “dumb” down politics for the common person, then maybe they should take the initiative to educate the people. It would be so much easier for a speaker if they could use the technical terms and not have to find a way to get the point across using different language. The pride and spirit of the country would be much better off because the people would feel like they really have a voice and can speak the lingo. That would be a real democracy, where everyone has a voice.

Methods for Rhetorical Analysis

When doing a rhetorical analysis, there are man beneficial elements one can gain. Before doing a rhetorical analysis, one must first understand that rhetoric is the study of potential misunderstanding and the ability to persuade. When you are in the midst of a conflict, you can figure out what the conflict is really about, what the various arguments are, and how those arguments are put together. In addition, should you decide to jump into the conflict, rhetorical analysis can help you present your arguments more effectively, and even more ethically.
Rhetoric stresses the essence of disagreements. Disagreements result from lots of things, such as that we have different experiences, different perspectives, and different areas of expertise. None of us knows everything, so we can learn from one another. Thus, good disagreement leads to better public decisions. A rhetorical analysis can focus on the author of a text, its audience, textual strategies, immediate context, and larger context. The place and time that it occurs is called kairos. When focusing on the author or ethos (character), we can get a sense of who they are and what they are trying to convey. Many times when speakers give a speech, they employ certain tactics within their rhetoric that reflect their intentions and personality. After focusing on the author, it is important to look at the text itself (logos, logical appeal). This is the reason behind a rhetoricians arguement and appeals to its audience. Lastly, and probably more importantly, the audience needs to be focused on. When presenting an an appeal, you need to know who you are appealing to. By analyzing a speech or campaign in this manner, one can better understand the arguement posed and what and who the author is trying to persuade. Within my sorority, we have elections for positions and when running for a position, each candidate must give a speech. Two people ran for the position of social chair and each proposed different ideas for events that we do for this semester. When one proposed we have a bake sale in order to raise money for our philanthropy, she gave an argument for why this idea would be effective. By holding a bake sale, we can all do something together as sisters, we can raise money for a good cause, and we can enjoy the delicious treats. Her method of persuasion was quite precise in that she had the right target audience and focused on a cause that we all want to raise money for. Overall, dissecting the pieces of persuasion and rhetoric gives us a better insight on the main focus of a speech or campaign and we can utilize these tactics in the future when proposing our own arguments.

Rhetorically Educated

According to Aristotle, rhetoric is “having the ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion.” In order to have this skill, one must learn the different techniques that effectively persuade, study and evaluate the implementation of these techniques, and then, in the end, practice the utilization of these techniques in successful rhetorical pieces. There is a flexible methodology used to rhetorically analyze a piece. First, one must evaluate who is the target audience. In order to manipulate the kairos of the situation, which includes the place and time where one is trying to convince a specific audience, it is essential to study the different types of evidence and appeals that are successful in the different situations. Furthermore, one must analyze failed attempts at persuasion in order to understand what is ineffective and in some cases what becomes a logical fallacy and therefore does not successfully persuade the target audience. Rhetoric is used every day in commercials, in campaign ads, in discussions between peers, and in many other situations. By analyzing the different rhetorical arguments, one realizes the effectiveness that each author achieves. Scrutinizing the successes and failures of others emphasizes ideas and methodology that one can use when making her own rhetorical claim. For example, one method of persuasion that most often has a crash-and-burn effect when the target audience is one’s parents is the usage of the bandwagon fallacy. Undoubtedly, every child at one point or another says, “Everyone is going,” “Everyone is doing it,” or “Everyone has one.” More often than not, the target audience, the parents, are not even close to being persuaded. Having rhetorically analyzed a situation where the bandwagon fallacy is not effective in a certain kairos, one learns what rhetorical methodology to avoid when trying to persuade her parents to buy her a new car, for instance. Steering clear of the bandwagon fallacy, she can successfully utilize other ethos, pathos, and logos appeals in order to come home to a new car in the driveway. Moreover, by studying the reactions to previous candidates’ acceptance speeches at the Democratic National Conventions, Barack Obama and his speechwriters more than likely focused his acceptance speech on a pathetic appeal because he was facing an audience who shared the same assumptions with him. Thus, rather than focusing his speech on numbers, he could emphasize the necessity for everyone to act by drawing on their emotions. By studying the attempts at rhetoric, a successful rhetorician can enhance her own piece and more successfully persuade her target audience. By rhetorical analysis, one may be able to break a rhetorical claim into smaller, more easily understandable pieces in order to determine the validity of the claim. Thus, one may not be persuaded in a situation they otherwise would have been because they have experience with rhetoric and can understand the persuasive techniques that the author is trying to utilize on the target audience. Rhetorical analysis not only teaches one how to successfully persuade others but also teaches one through experience how to be an educated audience.