Personal Blog 3: Libya, Bad "Movies", and the Believing Game

For this week's personal blog post, I'd like you to consider at least two of the "actors" in the Libyan tragedy at the U.S. consulate/release of The Innocence of Muslims. Take these two actors and use the Believing Game to write about what they did, why, and how it reflects their wider goals/purposes/worldviews.  Below are some possible actors, although you could also write about someone else you feel is relevant.  This story has been evolving over the last several days and I encourage you to spend a few minutes reading online to make sure you're up to date before you write. It could be that new actors will enter this story by the time you write your post, but a few starting points are listed below.

A couple of important details since we discussed this situation in class, as this story is rather confusing: First, "Sam Bacile"isn't a real person. He isn't Israeli or Jewish but instead seems to be a Coptic Christian. The tweets came from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, but the deaths were at the U.S. Consulate in Libya. The tweets were before the deaths that occurred in Libya.

"Actors"
"Sam Bacile", "filmmaker" who released the video
Terry Jones, who showed the film to his church in Florida
Employee in Cairo Embassy who posted the tweets
Mitt Romney
Barack Obama

Personal Blog 2: The Persuasive Power of the Robocall

For this week's personal blog post, I'd like you to consider the persuasive qualities of robocalls, yard signs, and bumperstickers. What do you think is the value of these persuasive acts? What rhetorical strategies do they typically employ? Who is the target audience for them? And by asking you about all three I don't mean to imply that the same response applies to each. Do they have things in common? Are they different in important ways?

post to your personal blog by 9/10



"Campaigning to the Bottom of the Electoral Barrel: Yard Signs, Bumper Stickers, and Worst of All, Robocalls"

I want bad things to happen to candidates who make robocalls. Really, really bad things. First of all, I'm on the Do Not Call registry, which means I DON'T WANT YOU TO CALL ME. And if you're going to irritate me by calling during dinner, or worse yet, during those brief and precious moments of my kid's naptime, at least have the decency to be a human being and not a robot. For years now I've been trying to figure out why candidates use robocalls. I just can't figure out how they persuade anyone. If you have any self-respect at all as a candidate, do you really want the vote of someone who is persuaded by a robocall? I can see how they have some "get out the vote" potential to remind people to vote or to remind people of how scary the opposition is (and thus motivate them to vote), but then couldn't you just save them for the last couple of days of the campaign? Why should we be subjected to them for weeks and months? Selecting a candidate isn't the only persuasive act at stake; your selection doesn't matter if you don't bother to go vote. But if I were ever truly on the fence about two candidates, the existence of a robocall would quickly make my decision clear.

Yard signs and bumper stickers are far less offensive, although again, it's hard to imagine them actually swinging someone's vote. The only scenario I can imagine is that you see all of your neighbors supporting a particular candidate then you decide to support that candidate too...because you're stupid and lazy. Didn't anyone ever teach you about peer pressure in school?

I was actually quite surprised to learn, in 2008, that one campaign was pretty much auctioning off yard signs to the highest bidder. You couldn't just receive a yard sign; you had to earn it by volunteering for the campaign. Really? You want me to pay you for free advertising in my yard? Yet these yard signs seemed to have become status symbols--people wanted them and were so proud of their candidate that they were willing to do whatever it took to "earn" one and display it. (Note that I said "people,", not "me." I remained yard sign-less in 2008.) I'd argue then that bumper stickers and yard signs are most persuasive in their ability to create a feeling of community and generate some degree of excitement about a candidate.

In case you were wondering, no, I have not been exercising my believing muscle in this post. I will now therefore concede that I find yard signs for issues to be useful, and occasionally for unknown candidates for local offices. Sometimes you don't year much about issues until you hit the polls, but the presence of issue-supporting yard signs alerts me before the election so that I can take the time to make a decision.

The Audacity of Hope

And now to do the same thing for President Obama:


Some questions to think about now that you've finished the beginning of Obama's book (and are about to watch his speech):

How does Obama open this book? What are the images and ideas that he begins with? What kinds of things does Obama reveal about himself, his personal life? What does the purpose of the book seem to be—not just “elect me” but elect him for what reasons? What kind of case is he trying to make so far in this book? How has Obama built (or harmed) his ethos thus far?

due in class 9/7

No Apology: Believe in America

Some questions to think about now that you've finished the beginning of Romney's book (and are about to watch his speech):

How does Romney open this book? What are the images and ideas that he begins with? What kinds of things does Romney reveal about himself, his personal life? What does the purpose of the book seem to be—not just “elect me” but elect him for what reasons? What kind of case is he trying to make so far in this book? Or, another way of thinking about it is what are his main criticisms of Obama? How has Romney built (or harmed) his ethos thus far?

due in class 9/5