The Great Debate

I have never really been interested in politics, but for my argumentative writing class, one of my assignments was to watch the first of three presidential debates that was shown live on Friday night. To my surprise, I actually enjoyed it. I learned a lot by watching, such as many more issues and policies being discussed, but the part that I really thought to be fun to watch was that both candidates seemed very knowledgeable to me. Of course, I am no political science major, nor do I have any interest in politics, but as an unbiased viewer, I thought McCain and Obama did a nice job of presenting themselves and debating each other.

In my argumentative writing textbook, I learned that a topic is a term used to describe something that generates an argument. Additionally, there are two types of topics; common topics, "suited to any argument" (Crowley, 120), and special topics, "those that belonged to some specific field of argument" (Crowley, 120). Sharon Crowley also states that "rhetors need a good deal of specific knowledge to argue from special topics" (p.121). I think that McCain and Obama have a lot of specific knowledge about many different issues, which is what allowed them to debate so well on Friday. Each candidate seemed to know a lot about specific topics, such as McCain knowing the details of Obama's proposals, for example. This was very impressive to me, as I feel that most people use common topics in arguments because they have not built such a specific knowledge on one, or even many, subjects.

2 Late Nights on the "Late Show"

In reading the news over the past few days, I came across an article about McCain and how he was scheduled to be on the "Late Show," but cancelled his appearance and took a break from the campaign Wednesday night to focus on the economic crisis in our country. I did not actually see the show, and have only the information given to me in the article to go off of, but apparently "Letterman [unloaded] on McCain for not showing up" http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIbK5ZyWUeEJrqOEcChTTkzHi3JgD93DP7U06. Letterman even stated: "Are we suspending it because there's an economic crisis or because the poll numbers are sliding?" Of course Letterman would feel a bit bitter about a presidential candidate cancelling coming on his show, but I do not believe that gives him the right to judge someone's character on national television. In fact, I feel that because of things in the media, such as this, happen everyday, ideas and opinions are formed by people other than ourselves. Another article I was reading was about the same topic: Letterman continued to "assault" McCain today and even went as far as to say, "Well, we might not see you on Inauguration Day" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_en_tv/mccain_letterman. This reminds me of something I read in my textbook in English class: Sharon Crowley discusses the topic of past and future conjecture and states that future conjectures are "educated guesses about something that will take place in the future" (Crowley, 121). In this case, it seems to me that Letterman is demonstrating the idea of future conjectures. He is assuming that because McCain cancelled his appearance on his show, that McCain is therefore not a good leader and would not make a good president in the future. I assume that because of his numerous "attacks" on McCain, Letterman is making an educated guess about McCain's leadership in the future, future conjecture.

As I was looking through the news today, I stumbled across an article in which the headline read, "Poll finds 18 percent of voters persuadable" http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables. Not long before the presidential election itself, eighteen percent of voters say they do not know who they are going to vote for or are willing to change their decision. Many people agree that neither candidate is the right man for dealing with the issue of economics in the United States during the present time, which does not assist in choosing one person.

Eighteen percent of all voters seems like quite a few people who could easily be swayed to vote one way or another, or even change who they were originally voting for. The article states, "Whichever presidential candidate convinces a swath of persuadable voters that he gets it...Could win the White House http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables. This stresses the exact point mentioned in Crowley's, Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students: rhetoric. In the beginning of her book, Crowley mentions the fact that "[rhetors] can make language do what they want it to do, can make listeners or readers hear or read in the way they intended" (Crowley, 25). This comparison provides evidence that in ancient times, rhetors were much like the presidential candidates of modern time, in that both are striving to be persuasive. Rhetors used language to manipulate others to do as they wanted them to, while modern Presidential candidates use language to win the persuasion of the majority of the people and work their way into office.

Anxious to fly?

In the news today, a security scanner that can measure levels of anxiety was talked about. The article can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425722,00.html. This scanner is in the beginning stages and still has a few more years until it will actually do its job of detecting terrorists, or perhaps it will be decided then that it will not work effectively at all. For now, scientists are studying ways of reading the levels of anxiety of a person as they walk through the scanner by measuring their body temperature, their heart rate, perspiration, etc. All in all, the goal of their research now is to be able to measure different levels of anxiety, so those who are just anxious about flying are not receiving the same reading as those who have other plans.

Although I do believe it is a good idea to invent a scanner for this purpose, so we are not only relying on reading a person's facial expression, I do not think it will be possible to separate those with anxiety about flying from those who are actually terrorists. The argument can be made for either position, I feel, but in this case I would have to side with the argument that this technology probably will not work. I think that if people knew they were walking through a machine that would scan physiological aspects of themselves, like breathing rate and heart rate, that they would be anxious not only about flying or missing a flight, but also about entering the scanner itself. Wouldn't most people's breathing rate and heart rate rise if they knew they were being evaluated in such a way? I think that this level of anxiety in addition to the anxiety some people already feel about being in airports and airplanes would just make the level reading skyrocket. I don't know enough about physiology or technology to state my argument with 100% clarity, but I raise the question: wouldn't high levels of anxiety appear on the screen the same as a terrorist's levels of anxiety? After all, aren't they terrorists trained to be calm in such situations?

Comic relief

Last Saturday, the well-renown comedy show Saturday Night Live made its season premiere, and with Tina Fey portraying Vice President candidate Sarah Palin, it seemed to be a success. It is clear that SNL has a democratic bias, but I believe that Tina Fey did a wonderful job impersonating Sarah Palin in a non-offensive way. Of course her performance was exaggerated, but isn't that the point of SNL? In my opinion, Saturday Night Live is a satire, it exaggerates characters and their flaws, which is what makes it funny. However, I also believe that the situation makes the show funny as well. In other words, I think that because of the reputation of Saturday Night Live being a comedy show, people expect it to be funny. With the expectation of comedy combined with the exquisite performance of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin, the show was a huge triumph. Although it clearly expresses a democratic bias, I believe it is fair, in this episode particularly, because Hillary Clinton was also portrayed by Amy Poehler in a very exaggerated manner. By amplifying the flaws of the characters they played, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were within the boundaries of comedic appropriateness. After all, it is their task to make us laugh.

A storm that blew over?

Recently, and with good reason, there has been a lot of news surrounding the topic of Hurricane Ike. A storm so viscous, that it left upwards of 50 people dead, millions without power, and damages far beyond repair. "The specific arguments that are currently circulating about a particular issue play an important role in creating kairos" (Crowley, p. 53). Kairos, as I discussed in a previous blog, are moments of opportunity that invite rhetorical responses. In this case, Hurricane Ike is a perfect example of a kairo because its surfacing opened the floor for numerous arguments to take place. A common topic of rhetoric in the news recently has been arguments presented for staying behind or evacuating areas such as Galveston, TX despite persistent warnings.

Many people ignore evacuation orders, based on a variety of reasons. Some may not have anywhere to go, some may not have heard the warnings, if they are hearing impaired for example, and others may have decided to wait out the storm http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/culture/2008/09/15/why-people-ignore-hurricane-evacuation-warnings.html.

On the other hand, many people evacuated upon the orders because it was explicitly stated that those in the path of Ike would face"certain death" if they did not leave http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/11/hurricane.ike.texas/index.html.

It is possible for arguments to be made for either side, both leaving or staying, but I believe that it would not have been smart to ignore orders such as these. Of course, it is a little different if someone does not have the money or transportation to leave than if they are just choosing to stay and tough out the storm. Clearly Ike was not something that would just blow over. People were warned of the power of Ike and ordered to evacuate, so choosing to stay in harms way does not seem logical to me.

Kairos

In the textbook we are reading in class, Crowley and Hawhee explain kairos as being "a window of time during which action is most advantageous" (p.45, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students). It is in this time of opportunity in which the success or failure of an argument, story, or a joke can be determined. Kairos can also serve as the moment of opportunity in which an argument rises. For example, gun control has been a topic of debate for hundreds of years now in the United States, but it is often at moments of despair, such as gun shootings, that lead to an upheaval of debates, policies, and laws.

In an article written last spring in Time http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1731195,00.html?cnn=yes, the Virginia Tech shooting is discussed, demonstrating that events such as this reaffirm people's thoughts about privacy rights and gun control, and rightfully so considering the kairos, or timing. A few laws have been challenged since the tragedy, both in terms of notifying parents when their child seeks counseling and allowing concealed weapons for the purpose of protection. Had it not been for the shooting or other events in which the kairos, or the proper opportunity presented itself, I feel that many issues would remain unaddressed. On the other hand, would we need to address policies and laws if not for kairos in the first place?