New Cartoon Vocabulary

I'm getting tired of vocabulary? I hate vocabulary don’t you hate vocabulary? Its as boring as reading a dictionary. This is why I have decided to revolutionize the meaning of words in my blog by picking out the coolest cartoon because let's face it, everyone loves cartoons they are A-MA-ZING!

Belief: To stir an emotion, use what your audience has experienced and what it expects to happen.

Storytelling: A well told narrative gives the audience a virtual experience-especially if it calls on their own past experiences, and if you tell it in the first person.

Patriotism: Attaches a choice or action to the audience's sense of group identity. You can stir it by comparing the audience with a successful rival.

Emulation: Responds emotionally to a role model. The greater your ethos, the more audience will imitate you.

Rules Get in the Way

Finally we have landed on my favorite part of rhetoric: ethos. I use to just overlook the meaning and simply categorize it in a long complicated chain of emotions.Basically to fool your audience into mesmerizing upon your presence. Turns out thanks to Heinrichs, there are three argumentative tools in any situation that can make anything seem good and proper, and I mean anything. Clearly Bluto was in fact a knucklehead that lacked in every aspect of common leadership skills, in every aspect of emotional intelligence, and in every aspect of logistics when it comes to decision making. Who on earth would follow a guy who finally figured out that “when the goin’ gets tough…and the tough get goin!”(66). What the fudge is that even supposed to mean? Where exactly is tough going?

Anyhow, he needs a lesson on earning trust. The exact moment when practical wisdom steps in. It’s really not that complicated because once again it is clear that everything is complete and utter bullshlagen. The real secret is to lead your audience into thinking you know how to solve the problem at hand. According to author John Bradshaw in his book Reclaiming Virtue: Practical wisdom “is the ability to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason.” We can take any historical moment when humanity is at its most vulnerable point such as dictatorships and even wars. This is where desperation takes over any emotion, when “leaders” (Pinochet is an example) take advantage of the situation and manipulate the people through phronesis as Aristotle might say.

Still I am not 100% convinced with Aristotle. Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that my environment has become more complex, competitive, and specialized that the opportunity to persuade using practical wisdom is getting annoyingly hard! John Bradshaw believes that “unbending rules eliminates the importance of context in our decision making.” High five Bradshaw rules have become brick walls these days. Take for example curfew rules in boarding schools. Students have been seriously punished for getting late and I can vouch on it. This summer I went to Columbia’s summer program and we got on campus at 1 a.m. instead of the regular 10:00 curfew. All hell broke loose. No matter how much sense our explanation made the counselors had no choice but to follow whatever the rules said and punish us for three days. The locker system broke down in Six Flags, so how on earth were we supposed to control the situation!? How on earth are we supposed to “make the right decision on every occasion” (68) when rules and regulations cloud our sense of judgment by turning reason into a yes or no answer?

Sneaky Andressa

After reading chapter 6 I realized I can argue a few things that this book has to say about ethos. First of all I read Lina Merizalde’s blog about the essential qualities of persuasiveness. I believe that the first step to approaching your audience is by making them focus their full and undivided attention to you as a speaker. As Lina said, lying is not necessarily crucial in your process of persuasion, but reputation is. I see classic examples in school assemblies and fashion shows. If you have a reputation of being outgoing and insanely hilarious, people will most likely look forward to hearing what you have to say about MTV night. The humble and shy people don’t exactly share that same type of luck. If they want to be heard, they are going to have to step out of their comfort zone without plunging into the dark waters of social suicide.

Another strategy I love but somehow can never actually get it right without sounding sarcastic is the tactical flaw. The secret is to reveal a defect (in my case ego becomes a brick wall) that can later be used to reason why you did what you did and sound like Prince Charming at the same time. Let’s say I got in huge trouble for getting home drunk from a party and I am facing big time consequences.

Me: I know mom I’m sorry I feel so alone and left out of the group that I can be strong enough when it comes to peer pressure.

This not only dodged me the classic “YOUR’E GROUNDED”, but it also took on pathos in order to play with my parents emotions and make myself sound like all I really need is love and attention. If I would have gone with the more aggressive response well then lets just say I would be facing the door of rehab.

Presidential Hunger Games

This Presidential Debate was definitely far more heated than the last one. The tension and the emotion of both candidates was no secret as they zoomed in to their faces. The faces said it all. Obama, unlike last time, seemed much, more secure about his position and didn’t give Romney much room to attack his proposal and criticize his government during the last four years. It all started with the question about Libya and the Middle East. Obama was not hesitant in accusing Romney when he publically spoke that the best option was to leave troops in Iraq because Russia was their mayor threat. Here we see Obama using decorum by agreeing with the people that Romney was sending mixed messages about his action plan, and this meant that he was taking on the role of the American Citizens by questioning the Republican candidate and making him sound indecisive.

When one of the questions referred back to the Egyptian turmoil, the mediator asks Obama if he has any regrets on taking down Mubarak. Skillfully Obama not only positioned himself towards a peaceful approach, but he also quoted one of the most famous American presidents in the history: Kennedy. This was very tactful because he now stood on the “good side” instead of mentioning President Nixon which would have probably had a disastrous outcome.

Apart from analyzing the debate itself we should also focus on the big picture, in other words the scenery where the debate took place. American colors red, white, and blue illuminated the stage and so did the presidential ties. I don’t mean to go all fashion police on Romney, but his tie was red with silvery purple stripes….eek! Obama on the other hand went for a more neutral color such as blue. A few months ago our president Juan Manuel Santos used that same color in his speech about peace negotiations with the FARC. This color represents neutrality and is basically a color everyone can relate to as being pretty. Even though Romney lost points in terms of Project Runway, by the end of the debate his whole family was there to support him. IM not sure they had a choice. Basically it was his way of showing the American people that he is a man of family, and I must agree I mean the dogs and maids were the only ones missing!

Hold Your Horses

After reading chapter two, I have to accept I lowered my head and thought to myself “oh god my most important arguments have no potential what so ever because apparently all I do is fight.”
If I want a new cellphone: fight
Refuse to go running: fight
I’m sick and want to leave school: fight

Clearly I tend to be more aggressive than passive and no wonder I lose most of my arguments. I learned that I have to stimulate emotions, so basically I can use pathos in order to hit the soft spot of my opponent. I can be more wistful and manipulate my opponent into changing his opinion and finally carry out my plan so that it actually works.
I decided to practice right here right now on my beautiful blog. I think I’ll go with classic arguments I have with my dad because if I go with previous arguments (fights) with my mom, it will just take this to a whole other level of complicated.

Ok, so this past year I have been in a midlife crisis when it comes to my equestrian life. I have had no accomplishments what so ever because my horse Native decided to go shenanigans every time she walked into the competition arena. We found out it was this huge medical problem in her hooves. Any way I was devastated and for me the only solution was..... A NEW HORSE OF COURSE! My mom was a lost battle from the beginning, but my dad is a little easier if I want to apply what Heinrichs has taught me.
Let’s start from scratch.

Changing his mood: I make sure he notices how much it hurts seeing Native stand in her stable for 6 months of recovery, and meanwhile I get watery eyes every time I don’t get to compete. This makes him feel sorry for me and therefore more vulnerable to my arguments

Changing his mind: I have to convince him that the only way I can keep pursuing my dream is if a new horse joins the family probably mentioning certain ones I have seen and are pretty cheap. He can hopefully see that buying a champion horse is the best chance I have in winning the Nationals and South American championships next year

Desire to act: Now I can make my epic puppy face just to make sure he still knows I’m devastated and then start acting on my own by doing my own research and calculations about shipping and expenses if we were to bring a horse from Brazil or Europe. This way he sees I am already doing my part and hopefully he will pitch in and feel a desire to act in order to solve the problem.

I will put this master plan into action and on my next blog I might tell you if the mission was a success or failure!!

But Dad!

If you must know my master argument in getting a new horse is already in motion! It has gotten to the magical moment where I even have support from my mom, and she is not easy to confront. Anyway, luckily I have had time to read chapter 4 and now I have even more information in order to make my best arguments in this long process of getting my horse. We will now focus on Pathos, Logos, and Ethos. This is not new information for me but I had never considered it to be part of this context. The first step as I read is Logos. It all starts with concession meaning I can use whatever my dad skillfully says and just use it against him to win points. Just like Aristotle said, every point has its flip side. Last night it was all centered on two options we had. The first was I could go to Germany to ride and pick out the horse that best suited me. Second, we could send my trainer to try the horse or just see a video and decide if she was really worth just bringing here without riding her beforehand.

My dad thought it was extremely unnecessary to travel all the way to Germany and that just by seeing the video it would be enough. It was hard not to lose all control and just snap at his ignorant remarks that once again proved he obviously knows nothing about the sport. How on earth does he want me to pick my next dream horse, my next partner in crime without being able to see her face to face? Instead I thought back to the book, calmed down and looked at my options. First I was going to go for the easiest: Logos.

Logos: Look dad it’s simple, from all of our friends that have brought horses from USA or from Europe, when have you heard of them making such a huge investment that is based on a forty second video? What if the horse gets here and oh what a surprise she hates water jumps and bucks when she feels threatened? Taking such a risk is unreasonable and excuse me for what I am about to say, idiotic on so many levels!

Now it is time I sympathize with my dad. This does not mean I share his reluctant mood when we talk about the issue, it just means I will play along to whatever he says and step by step I will change my emotions towards the situation hoping he does the same.

Pathos: Dad you can’t spend all your money on this one horse they sent a video on. Think about it, you work non-stop and travel non-stop in order to financially support my passion for horses, and yet here you are throwing your money up in the air and hoping nobody catches it. You deserve a great deal on our next horse, we as a family deserve a horse that won’t break after every competition because expenses just keep accumulating.

I have only gotten this far, but as you can see by sharing his views on the situation he actually seemed to relax and actually consider my proposal. I even went straight ahead and mentioned the whole awkward part of the conversation which was the cost of the damn horse! I knew he felt it was all too much, so I just agreed 99.9% with him making sure I gave him full credit for his effort.

Now that I’m in Africa

Now that I’m in Africa it’s no surprise that I have a handful of words that when I read I feel like I have no idea what I’m doing. Sure we have the advanced vocabulary English words that clearly my intelligence has not raised to that level of comprehension, but on the other hand I also thought it would be cool if I took my time in defining the cultural words.

Kapenta:  a type of fish also known as small fresh water sardine, has several chemical compositions that help reduce the risk of various diseases including prostate cancer.

Boerewors: type of sausage, popular in South African cuisine. The name comes from the Afrikaans words boer ("farmer") and wors("sausage"), and is pronounced [ˈbuːrəvors]

Veldskoen: Southern African walking shoes made from veg tanned leather or soft rawhide uppers attached to a leather footbed and rubber sole without tacks or nails.

Badza: Zimbabwean football striker. He has been capped for the Zimbabwean national team. He was in the Zimbabwean squad for the 2006 African Cup of Nations.

Croon: To hum or sing softly.

Paraffin:  A waxy white or colorless solid hydrocarbon mixture used to make candles, wax paper, lubricants, and sealing materials. Also called paraffin wax.

Bilharzia:  an infestation with or a resulting infection caused by a parasite of the genus Schistosoma; common in the tropics and Far East; symptoms depend on the part of the body infected

An Accepted Fact about Africans

While reading off page 66 in the memoir I noticed a unique way she saw the Africans around her. It’s like she had this mental notebook page that she titles An Accepted Fact about Africans and even though it’s pretty discriminatory, stereo typical, and just full on racist, she still felt like it was a detail on her childhood worth confessing. It’s good that she did because after that I was able to understand why and how she treated the workers around her house and how her levels of fear and anxiety rose when she was able to relate someone to one of her side notes. So you know what I’m talking about I will share a few.

·         If you spoil them they got cheeky

·         They were good at singing and dancing( Wikipedia makes it very clear)

·         The men were useless at weekends( alcohol might have something to do with it, just throwing it out there)

·         You’ll never hear a black baby cry (up until now I will agree to disagree)

·         They were heavy-handed with cleaning products

·         They were riddled with worms and bilharzia( heads up it’s a vocab word)

Up until now it can only explain one thing. Lauren looked down on them, and therefore the terrosrist were going to look down on her family and on her race as well. History repeats itself and this just exaplains the massacre at the beginning of the memoir, or  atleast it all adds up together as to why they would break into her house and kill her family one by one.

Vote for Garner!

I never thought a debate about language and grammar could get so heated up. I feel like I am in a presidential campaign 3 weeks before elections. And just like elections I always have aside to pick and I will stick to this side throughout my whole blog. After reading the four intense discussions led by Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner on the argument about labeling themselves and other writers as a “descriptivist” or as a “prescriptivist”.  Just to give a quick lesson on what they both are a descriptivist describes language as it is being used while a prescriptivist focuses on how language should be used. I must say it took me  while to get onto the whole grammar talk conversation, but It was simple enough to notice that Greene was clearly a “descriptivist” while Garner a “prescriptivist”. It’s interesting to read how they attacked each other without directly being rude or being personally offensive, but instead they just played with words like Greene labeling a prescritivist for “imposing bogus rules on school children.” This was the first signal that led me to believe BAM we have a winner and he is a descriptivist!  He really isn’t ashamed he just “opens fire” to inaugurate the grand linguistic battle and states that when it comes to language there is a set of standard conventions that everyone needs.  He is so confident that he even goes on about how a highly respected writer such as  E.B. White, made an unforgivable mistake when it came to “which” and “that” on one of his essays. Wow he really went for it you would think the respect one must have towards those writers in unbreakable and nonnegotiable, but apparently not.  What are they thinking of him right this moment,(it would be awkward if they were already dead lol) I mean I’m going to take the prescriptivists attitude and shout out “ HEY he meant for the sentence to be used that way!”  Ironically now that I view him as a dictator of language he then goes on to saying, “you’re free to refer relative pronouns for different kinds of clauses on the principle of ‘one word for one function, wherever possible’.”

Well that was a lot to swallow, but now it’s Graner’s turn and he is not taking it easily. Just by reading his title you can tell he is not pleased with being name called behind his back. His article is called The Labels are Burning and he wastes no time in clearing his reputation.  He explains one of the most logical and balanced explanations during this write-off when he states that if you want to be highly literate, but not an obsessive user of language- you are prescribing. Garner 1, Greene 0! But he is not done yet. This next part reminds me of the letter we read for our timed writing from Samuel Johnson because they both prepare the reader in order to control their reaction now that the message is not going to be pretty. He defines a descriptivist just like Greene defined a perscriptivist by saying,” you’d object I assume, if I were to define descriptivist as quantative social scientist with no interest in literary style.” I am going to agree 100% on this and I will amazingly finish my blog with his final words because even though the essay on quotations thinks I’m loosing credibility I just can’t say better than he can.

“We could go a long way toward reconciling the language wars if linguistics and writers like you would stop demonizing all prescriptivists and start acknowledging that the reputable ones have always tried to base their guidance on sound descriptions.”