The Rand Corporation with the help of Reverse Vampires

Every research project that I have ever done (up to this point) has been a solo project. For each one, I would try to find a topic that was of some interest to me and trudge through literature on that topic. They were always slow, boring, unrewarding endeavors that turned into me struggling just to put something on paper and turn it in. But last week was the first time I sat down to meet with a group and plan out a collaborative research project. In almost no time at all, we were throwing out ideas and having more success as a group than one could have alone. With each mind came a new modification to the original idea that allowed us to hone our plan into something that we were not only happy with, but also eager to put into action. I guess I had never thought about it before, because I am usually one to do things on my own, but two heads really are better than one (or in this case three are better than one). A short time later, our brainstorming session came to a close as a complete success. And with that short meeting, a project that could be overwhelming if done alone, seems much easier to handle with the addition of just a few more people.

Project of Passion

After our slight difficulty rounding everyone up for a meeting, we all had some ideas about our research project. It is quite difficult for three varying minds to converge and agree on the same idea and presentation. But surprisingly, after leaning on a table in the natural light of Lakefront on Langdon for no more than a half hour, we had both our subject of research and the style of presentation agreed upon. The idea sprang from one chair, with each seat feeding to the river of thoughts.“Oh, that’s a good idea, and how bout we………..”“Yeah, I like that, and after we have our information we could add…………..”“I really like the pamphlet idea. And it can be colorful!”“The community will be able to use this, so we’re working for something more than just the grade.” Then within a few more minutes our proposal was written and the work was divide up. We all agreed on the objective and were looking forward to the work (strange, I know!). When we first sat down, we just sort of tossed around ideas but no one caught one we really wanted to work on. So, for the first five or so minutes it was random thinking, but once decided on a topic of research it was nothing but strikes.I left our meeting feeling a bit of anticipation for the project. I know, it is for school, but in this particular case it is something of interest, not just an assigned generic topic. It will be a lot of work, but in the end it will be completely worth it because we ourselves will be better consumers and we will have also supplied others with the means of being globally conscience when they go out for their morning coffee or business lunch. This little pamphlet could affect those in other places, farmers we will never know, simply by boosting the demand for their organic or fairly traded products. Alright economics, let’s get to it!

planning this project.

Each member of our group came to the meeting with a few ideas we were interested in researching. After we each proposed a few topics, we began talking about a few other possibilities when Helen brought up the idea of fair trade and from there it was a breeze. We had already settled on creating a pamphlet before we had decided on a topic and luckily, the idea of fair trade fit perfectly into this form. As we began to elaborate on the topic a bit, we decided it would be very cool if we created a fair trade and environmentally conscious "map" of restaurants and cafes in the downtown area. At this point, we were all very excited about our idea and the ideas just kept on flowing.

We had no disagreements while trying to create our proposal and I think all three of us are very satisfied and excited about this project. I am actually surprised that it ended up being so simple to decide on a topic and idea since I often find it difficult to decide on something as easy as where I going to dinner with my best friend. All three of us seem to be passionate about the idea of fair trade and using local or organic items. Thus, we are curious to find out which restaurants in the downtown area share this passion. Ultimately, we wish to actually distribute this pamphlet since we believe that there is a large population in Madison that would also be interested in this issue. All in all, I am very excited to begin this project as I think it will be beneficial to our group and the greater Madison and UW population.

Political Pageant

In today’s society, some of the most famous celebrities are famous simply for being rich and famous. Socialites and pop stars, like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, have become famous based on their drunken antics, fabulous wardrobes, and pretty faces—and not much else. Thus, it is absurd for Senator John McCain to compare Senator Barack Obama to these ridiculous celebrities. Although one cannot compare a hardworking politician to frivolous twenty-something celebrities, politics cannot be separated from our pop culture.
Pop culture has an influence on politics, but at the same time politics is in and of itself a form of pop culture. And sadly in our society, it’s all a game of how pretty you are.
Before televised debates, politicians were solely evaluated based on what they said and not on how they looked. However in 1960, when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon ran for the presidency, Americans began to realize how importance one’s physical appearance actuall was. Most Americans would agree that visually, John F. Kennedy was the more appealing candidate. He looked young, suave, and promising. Since this inundation of the visual media, it is hard to separate one’s thoughts from his/her appearance. Unfortunately, it is not always one’s thoughts that become the selling point.
Sarah Palin is a paramount example of this: she is under qualified, yet a conventionally attractive person. Her physical appearance ultimately makes her an “attractive” candidate but not necessarily in a positive way. Politics should not be a beauty pageant but has recently become more similar to one. Take a look at the four women involved in the presidential campaign: Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain. Their physical appearance has become just as important as anything they say. Their outfits cost hundreds of dollars. Their hair is perfectly coiffed. They are simply on display in order to benefit the presidential candidate whom they are backing.
In pop culture, a celebrity’s appearance is a large part of the package and it is acceptable since we like them or dislike them based on that persona. However in politics, it is scary to think that so much can be based on a candidate’s appearance since we are supposed to support him/her based on his/her ideals and NOT on appearance. Although Hollywood has become little more than a beauty pageant, we must make sure that Washington does not follow.

PopPoliCulture

The convergence of popular culture and politics seemed inevitable as politicians are now categorized as celebrities. When Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992 he was featured on a tonight show playing a jazz saxophone and answering the question of whether he wore boxers or briefs (he wears briefs, by the way). That put him in the same television screen as Arsenio Hall and in the magazines with movie stars. Politics became popular culture. This can be seen both positively and negatively. Since popular culture is just that, popular, it can make anything categorized in it fashionable and widespread. After the 2000 election, and especially the 2004 upset, I found myself impassioned for politics. As I toured colleges my senior year of high school I was told that political science was recently one of the most popular majors. With the increased publicity of Capitol Hill more people became interested and began to participate, thus broadening the range of people who were elected to office, producing better representation. Though increased media can be positive, it can also have damaging effects on personal lives. For example, we’ll go back to President Clinton. His sex scandal was a long and drawn out process that was highly publicized, and that is the first thing you think of when he comes up in conversation. Not his foreign policy, not his domestic provisions that aided the U.S. economy, but his nights of adulterated passion. Now, compare this will John F. Kennedy’s alleged affair with Marilyn Monroe. It was barely make public and Kennedy’s legacy is lead by his politics, not his penis. I’m not saying that I condone Clinton’s actions, because deceiving both your country and your family is a terrible action that he’ll never fully be forgiven for. But, what legislation didn’t get passed in Congress or the UN because of his personal life? Media now mixes business with pleasure. Can this mix remain democratic? What is the line between free speech and private information? Celebrities (real ones, that is) have an immense power in contemporary politics. They may have logos to share, but they are relying on pathos to persuade their audience to agree with the right candidate, the right legislation, the right cause. But, do celebrities make political videos to boost their own images or to increase the popularity of the person they support? I prefer to be trusting rather than skeptical, so I’ll side with them using their power of persuasion. I just hope this doesn’t lead me into a political war under false pretenses. Democracy can be sustained throughout popular culture as long as we the public can distinguish between what is in style and what is actual reality.

On Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical analysis is useful because it allows us to see more than just words. If someone is trying to persuade us, then rhetorical analysis allows us dissect that person’s argument. This dissection allows us to see through bullshit and get to the roots of that argument. We are in a better place to make a decision if we understand their argument and attempt at persuasion. We will not, necessarily, be fooled by some sort of fallacy that they commit while trying to persuade us. For example: your boss has a meeting with you and your co-workers to talk about the importance of compassion, customer service and not making excuses. He gives examples of his own outstanding customer service and makes valid arguments for the importance of hard work and compassion. He was very persuasive and his speech seemed to stem from the heart and you trust him because of the compassion and enthusiasm that he showed while giving that speech. But later you employed rhetorical analysis and found out that most of his examples of his own customer service were fabrications and that whenever you asked him to aid you in providing good, compassionate customer service he made excuses for why such things could not be done then you would be skeptical. You would realize that he tried to persuade you to trust a false authority (him). If you were a quality employee then you would probably see that it is important to have good customer service skills and to not just provide excuses, but to provide answers and results, but by analyzing your bosses argument and his character you would realize that he is not someone that you can simply trust, or take his word as true. You would realize that you will have to examine any argument that he makes to make sure that he is not just stating fiction as fact to get his way. By using rhetorical analysis, you would be a person that is more conscious of the things happening around you, and you would be better equipped to find the truth behind the fluff.
Rhetorical analysis will also allow us to better understand and appreciate the versatility of language and the vast beauty in the possible modifications that can be made to that language. By analyzing multiple persuasive (and non-persuasive) arguments we see how there are many ways to make a point, or express a desire, or say anything. With wordplay, and pun, and alliteration, and the plethora of other devices that can be used while trying to convince a piece of art can emerge. These devices of language can be employed just as lighting and perspective and allusion could be used in painting. Rhetorical analysis allows us to appreciate the beauty that comes with the customization of a language and the uniqueness that each author provides while attempting to form a persuasive argument.

Analyzing Rhetoric.

I believe that analyzing a rhetorical argument allows one to either make a stronger counter argument or to be more justified in his/her agreement. Rash decisions and opinions are often made when one does not take the time to scrutinize an argument. A person can be easily persuaded by an argument that seems legitimate simply based on their personal beliefs. However, even if the person agrees with the overall statement, the argument could be flawed and then the listener ends up with false information and generally passes it on to others. On the other hand, if the listener disagrees with the argument, a rhetorical analysis gives him/her the ability to counter the statement by pointing out its fallacies and weak points. Ultimately, rhetorical analysis allows for one to become a better debater and helps to prevent false information from circulating.
In the case of last week’s vice presidential debates, I would be curious to analyze both Biden’s and Palin’s arguments. Being a liberal myself, I favored Biden in the debate overall and generally dismissed all of Palin’s claims. However, if I actually spent the time to go over the text of the debate I would probably be surprised to find that many of Biden’s arguments were faulty while many of Palin’s were legitimate—although I would rather not admit it.
My Dad has always told me that I am quick to debate and unfortunately have the tendency to not fully listen to my opponent’s argument (I always tell him that I get it from him!). As I’ve grown older I have purposely made the effort to carefully listen to my opponents in order to form more solid, convincing counter arguments. Although I am not doing formal rhetorical analyses, the purpose is similar in that I am finding the strong and weak points of my opponent’s claims which, ultimately, allows for me to win the debate or prove my point.
Although a formal rhetorical analysis can be tedious, the end result is worthwhile. If one fallacy is disproved with each analysis done, everyone benefits.