Why I'm Looking Forward To The Year 2012, Part II

This isn't my fifth blog post or anything. I just thought it was funny and it just happened to be completely relevant to my previous post. It's from the Non-Sequitor comic strip.

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2008/11/16/?campid=0&ssns=9&#

A New Direction (Please!)

With the outcome of the election behind us, many people are now analyzing the effects of Obama's election as president-elect. Most people have touched on the issue of "change" in seemingly superficial ways. Yes, Obama is fresh, young, and almost the complete antithesis of the current Bush administration. However, he is also the first Black president of this country. Going into his campaign, I think he must have known the type of reactions there would be if he won. For the most part, alot of the country did not see the issue of race as anything detrimental or overly important. In fact, he received a greater percentage of the White vote than Kerry did in 2004. With that being said, alot of people are announcing that racism is dead in America. Considering the reactions to Obama's victory, I cannot agree with that. Facebook was filled with the obvious formation of groups like, "I'm Moving to Canada..." I could understand that. But comments like, "Call the Coastguard, 2 million pounds of KFC and watermelon should be immediately sent to the White House..." or now the White House will be painted or black, or now some type of white slavery will be instituted were not only ridiculous but sad. For people to cling so closely to carefully formulated stereotypes for such a long period of time is mildly depressing. It didn't take me more than 5 seconds on Youtube to find a whole host of racist campaigns against him. Old and young biggots rant on how he is nothing but a "House Nigger," and how the end of America is near because he was elected. I pray this is only a minute part of our country. I pray that this is not something that will perpetually rear its ugly head in the next four years. The sad truth is, I know that it will. Until people of all colors are willing to openly re-evaluate our violent racial past, accept it for what it is, and take conscience actions not to repeat it, then race will always remain important. People often try their best to suppress any talk of race in its raw form. This however, is a luxury that can longer be afforded. People will have to stop being complacent and avoiding the white elephant in the room. People will have to talk about our history and not the neat and clean version served to us in elementary history books but a history that doesn't justify racially motivated crimes from anyone of any color. If America truly wants change WE as a nation must stop trying to suppress our demons and face them. We can no longer afford to avoid them as they have only led to more problems. We are not a perfect country, but our desire for perfection lies in our power to constructively criticize our mistakes and fix them. Instead of throwing a band-aid on a deep wound we need to evaluate the injury, stop the bleeding and heal. It is only then that we can say change has truly come to America.

Negative Urban Planning

An example of negative urban planning happened here in Leander, Texas about 3 years ago. One city council member from Leander and one from a city council member in Cedar park, Texas had an idea. Their idea was to combine the two separate cities into one and re-name the new city:Leander Park. When word of this got out it immediately had people from both cities upset and angry.
The only good thing that was offered about this idea was the school district. Leander and Cedar Park share the same school district: Leander ISD. The council members said that their new plan would help reduce school taxes if passed.
Many people rejected the idea because they felt like it was taking away their sense of home and tradition. Even if on the outside the only change would be the name. Citizens of both cities felt that their home would be taken away.
Thankfully this idea was rejected very quickly by many people and it never left the drawing board.

"A Whisper of AIDS"

For paper number two I chose Mary Fisher's speech on AIDS at the 1992 republican National Convention. This speech is known as one of the top speeches of all times. After watching it I can say that this is for good reason. Fisher's speech was a call to unawareness directed towards the American people. Fisher did a great job of appealing to the listeners sense of compassion when she told her heartfelt stories of how she has struggled with AIDS.
Fisher also makes appeals to logos by giving facts regarding the death toll due to AIDS. AIDS, she states is the third leading killer among young adult Americans and this will only get worse due to the fact that AIDS is spreadable.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/maryfisher1992rnc.html

Obama/Kennedy

For paper 2 I chose Kennedy's "Strategy of Peace" speech given at American University in 1963. In this speech JFK used several types of arguments to present his case to a young audience but relied mostly on arguments of the heart and of the character to persuade them of his claim. I think Kennedy's use of these arguments for peace in the world could be compared to arguments used by Barack Obama in his campaigning for the presidency.
The results of the election from last Tuesday did not surprise me at all. Though I felt overall Obama had a stronger following than McCain the last several months of campaigning played a crucial role in the election's outcome. McCain's arguments made against Barack Obama, whether through radio broadcasts or T.V. commercials, seemed to be of "facts and reason." Some of those "facts" were of Obama's relationships with Bill Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The controversy that the McCain camp tried to stir up over these past connections only led to crowds at McCain rallies shouting hateful, racist slurs about Obama. McCain's failure to silence them hurt the view of his character with the public. McCain's personal and often exaggerated attacks on Obama discredited him with the public I believe because Obama never returned the favor. Even if false ads ran about McCain's policies the magnitude with which the McCain camp ran ads against Obama's character was never matched. Instead Obama used the speeches at his rallies to persuade the audience to his side with visions of change for America. He was successful with the audience being a country coming off of 8 years with the Bush administration's "Strategy of War" and the other candidate allowing shouts of hate and ignorance at his rallies.

The latest South Park episode portrayed the election results in a funny way. The Democrats were wild, drunk, and partying in the street. The Republicans were making their way to cave shelters to ride out the Obama presidency. This episode showed how they were both wrong. One Democratic character who went wild loses his job, his pants, and his dignity. The viewer comes to realize that "change" may not always be a good thing. The Republicans after spending one day in their cave, realize that the world has not ended. They think that perhaps this presidency won't be as awful as they originally thought.

I thought it was impressive that this episode included parts of Obama's acceptance speech, considering the fact that this cartoon aired one day after the election. The main plot of this episode is funny and unexpected, but I don't want to give it away. This episode is worth a watch, and I hope you check it out!

Obama VICTORY

No doubt, whether it was a disappointing day of democratic unveilings or a successful night of celebration, last Tuesday was a defining night in politics. Winning 364 electoral votes, Senator Obama won the 2008 presidential election, making history as the first African American to become a United States president. With a democratic majority in both the Senate and House, the one-party domination revolutionized the election even further. 

Having analyzed Obama’s March 18^th address on racism for our Assignment 2,

 I am looking forward to seeing Obama’s beautifully pervasive rhetoric come to life. 

Criticized of being all talk and no action, Obama is under immense pressure to turn

his various medical and economic plans into reality. Thanks to

the democratic majority in the legislature, I feel he has the means to truly make this happen. Rhetoric and linguistics are beautiful tools, but without truth behind them and plans un-implementation, the words are empty; they mean nothing.

"Greatest economic challenge of our lifetime"

Barack Obama's main focus in his first press-conference as president-elect was the economy. Since October, the unemployment rate has sky-rocketed, leaving a total of ten million Americans without jobs. Obama warns that "we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime" and promises to begin confronting the issues as soon as he takes office. His first priority is to create a fiscal stimulus plan to promote economic growth. He hopes to create more job opportunities for the middle class and also improve unemployment insurance benefits. Obama was very tactful in his speech, recognizing the fact that he is not yet the president and that only one person is president at a time. But he does mention that he will keep watch on the Bush administration's efforts to fix the economic problems. Obama realizes there is no easy way to solve the country's problems, but is optimistic that it can be done.

Prop 8

Big news in California was the passing of Prop 8, the proposition amending the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The creator of the video I posted above, which is anti-Prop 8, uses several techniques we've talked about in class to prove his point--that Prop 8 is a bad thing. He makes legitimate comparisons between the civil rights era and the present-day gay rights movement, suggesting that they are essentially the same thing. The creator effectively shows, through this comparison and several quotes from historical figures such as JFK and Martin Luther King, that all men are created equal and to deny gay people the right to be married is un-American and unconstitutional. I thought this video was interesting because it shows that, while the American people may have become more liberal in the sense that we elected a minority President, we have taken a step to the right as far as gay rights are concerned.

Letter from 2012 in Obama's America

I am sure all of you have heard my piece on this election. I feel as if I have beaten this horse into the ground. That being said, I hate to further expound upon the election, but I came across something particularly...intriguing?
Political banter is inevitable before, during, and after the elections. I have come to understand that we all have our own reasons for selecting a candidate, and it is nearly impossible to engage yourself in politics without getting offended. I do, however, feel that there is a way to express opinions tactfully.
There is still a line that can be, and frequently is, crossed.
Focus on the Family, a conservative group headed by talk radio personality James Dobson, voiced their warning to Americans about Obama in the form of a letter...from 2012. Focus on the Family used their crystal ball to peer into the future, dooming Obama's presidency before it has even begun. Granted, this piece was released before the ill-fated election, but regardless, the tactics used to scare voters seems like borderline libel. "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," depicts nothing short of a warzone. All of the conservative criticisms of Obama have come to fruition, as the country is rampant with same-sex marriage laws, socialist healthcare, and a failing economy (due to the taxes, of course!). In a piece that is SUPPOSED to be based on "What if...?" questions, the manipulation and exaggeration of President Elect Obama's policies and past voting records has to be one of the most frustrating things I have ever read. I realize the point of the letter was to scare the voters into voting for McCain, but from an organization whose doctrine calls to love all people, this makes me extremely uncomfortable.
I can only hope that this letter was written as a last resort to pull voters in, and not thoughtfully planned. If the letter is an accurate depiction of the author's view of the future, I fear very much for the polarization in this country for the next 4 - 8 years.
http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf

The Obama Nation

The type of unabashed, wild enthusiasm Obama has received is the kind usually reserved for rock stars and championship sports teams, not politicians. This may prove to be both a bane and/blessing for the president elect. With his seeming unlimited public adoration , Obama can almost do no wrong. For the first part of his term, at least, any action he makes or legislation he signs, will be seen as the right thing to do for the country. This will cause more Congressmen to vote with him, as they would not want to fall out of favor will their electorate back home. At the same time, however, Obama's blank check of public opinion could be his downfall. President Bush had, as many presidents do, a similar wave of public opinion. He used this to push the U.S. into Iraq, one of the greatest mistakes of the last half-century, as well as several other questionable actions. Obama needs to make sure that he does not let his level of support inflate his ego and cloud his judgment, something he has done a good job so far. Should he continue his campaign of humility and respect, Barack Obama could be the greatest president this country has seen since John F. Kennedy.

Howard Stern on Harlem Voters

This may come accross as slightly offensive, but I think its pretty important. There are definitely many Obama voters that are well-informed and intelligent, however with the many stabs at "ignorant, racist republicans" (which are a minority of extremist people who tend to be over-reported on) there should also be a counter to this image: the ignorant democrat voter. There was concern that many black voters were voting for Obama merely because he, too, was black. The reporter in this video presented Mccain policies as Obama policies to voters in Harlem (who were voting for Obama). The majority ended up stating that they were indeed for these policies, even though they were actually those of McCain. I beleive the population of people that fit this scenario is a very small minority, however it is important to be aware of the many types of voters. If we are going to constantly spin footage of "racist republican voters" (the video after this paragraph is an example of such) perhaps we should look at "ignorant democratic voters". Hopefully this will make people realize that there are always extremist but they do not make up most of the population and we must stop acting like they do. Balance is key to weaning out extreme views that tend to artifically scare Amerians in to believing one way or another, and cause further distance between the left wing and right.

An example of a "racist republican" video seen repeated recently:

Change Has Come

These political cartoons depict Barack Obama as the solution to all of America's problems. In the first cartoon, the eagle is shown battered and damaged, similar to the state that America is in. In the second cartoon, Obama is seen glueing the Constitution back together. He appears to be focused and determined to get the Constitution back into working order. In the third cartoon, Abraham Lincoln, whom Obama has been likened to several times, appears to be celebrating Obama's win. And in the last cartoon, perhaps the most daunting of all, is a picture of Bush handing a failing America over to Obama. These cartoons all depict change coming to America, however difficult a task that may be.

Change in America

With the election finally over, and the outcome announced the next four years are on the minds of Americans everywhere. The future of the nation is uncertain due to issues like the economy and the war. Obama is such a different candidate than we've had as president before, that Americans can't stop discussing what the future will be like. In an editorial in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof, it talks about how Obama is such a change of pace from President Bush. The argument he makes is that Obama is an open intellectual, so hopefully Americans will follow in his steps. If our president is clearly more interested in education, then the American people might be too. This would really help our nation with all the issues at hand. Kristof then compares Obama to other political figures, like John F. Kennedy. He claims they're similar because JFK was also an "open intellectual." Overall Kristof puts his hopes in Obama to change the future of America, which is what Obama's campaign was all about. So, we can't be certain what the future holds but we can wish for a positive presidential influence.  

"A defining moment...a different future."

Throughout the Presidential campaigns of 2008, one theme which presented itself again and again was the fate, the future, of the United States. Both candidates often made a point to appeal to make appeals their audiences regarding the future of the country, and why each would provide a better tomorrow. In our current economic state and political climate, Barack Obama proved the most effective, clearly after Wednesday, at delivering a future vision for Americans. In the above clip, Senator Barack Obama speaks on the campaign trail about "a different future." He first relates to his audience by detailing the struggles that many Americans have gone through and continue to experience. He sympathizes with them. He states the pressing need for a better future for America, and insinuates strongly that he is the best man for the job.

Though throughout his campaign Obama was accused of being an elitist, he shows in this short clip that he is capable of sympathy for the average American, and builds his credibility and pathos, both, in doing so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7712138.stm

follow link to view- "Washinton Diary: America's Future"

With the recent events of the election, I chose an article that addresses the new views of the American people and their general rebellion towards ideas of the past. This article by Matt Frei shows how far the United States has come on racial views and progression. Novemeber 4 was a benchmark for-out with the old ideas of Bush, in with new ideas of change. Frei also highlights Obama's utilization of the internet and taking risks through the establishment of field offices in long-time republican states. I thought it was a good summary of the differences in each candidates approach of the election and the involved weaknesses. I have definitely taken on a better opinion of politics due to this election.

Why I'm Looking Forward To The Year 2012

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iY73Kk8AwCmPjHrKEJ1WIPgv78zw

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/republicans-gear-up-for-2012-race/242287?icid=100214839x1213213347x1200780859

I don't know about you but I love presidential campaigns. I love hearing about all the gossip and news about candidates lives and their bids for presidency. I enjoy seeing campaign ads and reading about mudslinging. But what I look forward to the most, what I can't wait for, is hearing about the campaign for presidency TWO YEARS BEFORE THE ELECTION. I experienced that thrill with this election. With all the different ways that the media has in their arsenal to inform the public, it would be no surprise to me if I hear about the 2012 election in tomorrow's news. That's precisely what is entailed in the links above. They cover Sarah Palin's notion to bid for presidency in 2012 as well as listing who president Obama will have to confront in order to win the 2012 election. I still can't believe they're already talking about the next election even before the newly elected president has even had time to enter office. I don't feel like it is necessary to be giving so much attention to something that hasn't even developed yet. I'd like to think that I'm not the only one who is happy to have this election over with so I can have some peace and quiet from heated political issues over the presidency. I'd like to think that, but it seems like the media isn't going to allow me to have that peace of mind.

"The Obama Moment - America Looks in the Mirror and Celebrates"

As we all know by now, Barack Obama is our next President! This has to be one of the most unanticipated "past views on the American future," where many are claiming that they never thought they'd live to see the day when an African American would become President of the United States. In this article, David Sirota describes how the election is monumental on numerous levels - "the election of the first African American president, the success of a campaign that was more grassroots than any past, and the very bold progressive mandate the country delivered thanks both to the sheer size of the victory and to the candidates making clear this was an ideological choice between Reagan-ism and Roosevelt-ism." Watching the news throughout election night, and even the past couple of days, it has become apparent that the country has already become more united. Obama warns that "This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change," encouraging America to embrace the opportunity and see what we can create. As McCain said in his concession speech, "The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly." I never anticipated such an election would happen in my lifetime, let alone my first year voting, and I have to admit that for the first time in my life, I'm sincerely proud of my country and this monumental change that we've already created.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008114505/obama-moment-america-looks-mirror-and-celebrates

Tom Brokaw and the Politics of Debates

In this clip from "The Daily Show" Jon Stewart interviews Tom Brokaw. Stewart asks Brokaw for details about what occurred before the second presidential debate. This includes things such as the demands of each political party (restrictions on questioning and timing). Stewart also asks Brokaw to describe his ideal debate format, and his answers are surprising. Among other changes, Brokaw describes a debate in which the moderator regains much of the power they have lost in recent years. I found this interview interesting because it touches on many of the issues presented in James Fallows' "Rhetorical Questions," and our class discussion on Wednesday. 

Admiral Stockdale, 1992

Kennedy - Nixon Debates, 1960

Digital Fashion

Mmoma Ejiofor, a columnist for Sify.com, projects that by 2016 Coco Chanel will be replaced with mp3 players and remote controls in the world of haute couture.
Cisco Technologies is working on developing "smart clothing." This new fashion doesn't just consist of neon colors and lycra, but will literally be wearable technology. Rather than simply owning a pair of jeans, we will have jeans that have special coils to keep our legs warm, using the same concepts as those used for producing ski wear. MIT students have already been experimenting with hoodies that come equipped with an mp3 player.
Not only will the technology IN our clothing improve, but the technology that produces clothing is also being updated. Bodymetrics, a London based company, makes the "Perfect Fit" jean, using a scanner to survey the subject's body type, literally producing their "perfect" fit of jeans. But, apparently you CAN put a price on perfection - the jeans go for about $530 a pop as of now.

In "Evan's Two Moms" Anna Quindlen makes a claim that gay people deserve the same rights as others. Quindlen appeals to pathos by discussing love. She states that the two women fell in love, just as others do and that they were capable of love and genuine commintment.Quindlen states in unfair and immoral for the governement to reward the commitments of some and not others. Quindlen also appeals to pathos by discussing interacial marriages. She uses the Loving v. Virginia case to back up her claim.

I found this youtube video that I thought related in that it was making the same type of argument as Quindlen. The video portrays the idea that a child can have a normal life with two moms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy3Fb51GfdE

Pathos in Commercial.

I think that the following commercial uses pathos to convince viewers that speeding is wrong. The commercial presents a scenario in which a driver who is speeding causes numerous deaths. The argument that speeding is wrong is presented in a very dramatic way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kabPKfoJf8k

A "Podcar" City?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/ithaca-aims-to-be-america_n_134352.html

So it's not an article about "Evan's Two Moms," but I came across this interesting piece yesterday and thought I'd share. It relates to the topic I wrote about for paper #1. It discusses Ithaca's desire to become a "podcar" city. The most basic definition of the podcar as given by the article is "a driverless, computer-guided car." The aim would be to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and still offer the privacy American's are used to with transportation. They say the technology is pretty much perfected at this point, but the most difficult barriers are the social or cultural ones.

Though it's hard to imagine moving so radically, it will be very interesting to see if anything happens in Ithaca's case. It could signal the move for other cities. In Sweden, according to the article, several cities have already decided they will use podcars, because they have committed to eliminating their dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. Why aren't we as progressive? Shouldn't we be? Or are we just too attached to our cars?

I'd have a hard time parting with my car, but this made me think. It's an idea I've personally thought about since I was a little kid, and it's incredible to see that the technology exists. This would eliminate both pollutions and the majority of auto accidents. Imagine, getting in your car after a night of drinking, knowing you'll make it home without a problem--because the computer is taking you there. That would be an incredible world to live in, in a lot of ways, and it's something we should consider.

Evan's Moms

In this piece, Quindlen uses various rhetorical strategies as well as strong emotional appeals to make her claims and arguments. Throughout the piece there is a central focus on gay marriage as an attempt for same-sex couples to start a family, they just want to be able to love each other-nothing else. This gives you an image of two loving parents, their children, their dog Spot, etc. However, Quindlen goes on to talk about the benefits that come along with a family such as tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc. These are all things that one would not normally think of in relation to family, and I think it kind of weakens her argument. Quindlen also seems to jump back and forth which almost seems contradictory to some of her possible stronger arguments. She attempts to appeal to pathos by arguing that your family should be with you in your dying days, but then she goes on and interrelates AIDS as a more prevalent thing amongst same-sex couples. She continues to do the same thing, jumping back and forth from love to tax breaks which kind of makes her lose credibility. Then to conclude, her attempt to use the court case - Loving v Virginia as an appeal to logos and pathos is completely ineffective. We don't really relate race and same-sex marriages as the same thing. What the argument here is how we define marriage- man and woman, which what was going on in that case. I think Quindlen shouldve probably picked a better court case to cite, something that related to something extremely unjust amongst same-sex couples. That would have definitely been more effective. All in all, I think her central arguments should be supported more with more factual evidence and her first defining element of family - love and support.

introduction in "evan's two moms"

I think that the introduction paragraph in the article "Evan's two moms" by Anna Quindlen was written very well. It starts out with "Evan has two moms. This is no big thing." This type of introduction gets you in the mindset that having two moms isn't that big of a deal. Quindlen mentions that Evan's friends think he is even lucky to have two moms. This tries to put the reader in Evan's shoes. In the end of the paragraph it tells us that his mom is a psychologist and that his other mom is a pediatrician. This may have been used to let the reader know that Evan's moms are smart, well-education people who have the potential to raise a child.

Can Paralyzed Walk in the Future?

http://www.newsoffuture.com/can_paralyzed_walk_in_the_future_health.html

I thought this article from the "News of Future" website was pretty interesting. The article claims that many quadriplegics have access to the a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) to control their surroundings. The article claims that by 2035, over 200,000 will be able to use this technology. Presently, BrainGate Neural Interface System tests have been successful and have allowed for a quadriplegic to move a cursor on a computer screen with his mind alone. This kind of technology could improve the lives of many and even make other technologies obsolete. The end of this article also claims that, by 2035, we will be trying to clone humans to help a person with spinal cord damage walk again.
An interesting comment on this article from a user states that this transformation won't take until 2035. He says that there are already incredible advances in "exoskeletons, artificial senses, artificial muscles, bionics, brainscanning/reading, etc." that will encourage new technology to advance faster.

Pathos in "Evan's two moms"

Anna Quindlen uses pathos throughout the article "Evan's two moms" to show similarities between gay and straight families and also to show the hardships gay couples must face. She starts off by using Evan as an example to show that he is living a normal life, and then throughout the article Anna brings up more ideas of raising children and of love. These are appeals to pathos in which she attempts to make gay couples relatable to straight couples. The other tactic she used extensively was showing the hardships that homosexuals had to face simply because they are homosexual. Not only did she bring up problems that arise with social security and things like that, but she brought up the little things like not being allowed to apply for a family membership at the Y. These examples are brought up to help her case that gay marriage is okay. And it works by making you feel bad for their problems. 

All in all, she did a good job of putting forth pathos arguments that could get you to relate and also make you feel bad--which was, I think, her goal.

Future Way of Life

http://www.futurist.com/articles/future-trends/eleven-events-trends-and-developments-that-will-change-your-life/

This article discusses events, trends, and developments that could change our way of life in the future. One thing that I thought was most important was the recent issues with oil. Oil is no longer an inexpensive and easy source of energy to obtain. The author Glen Hiemstra believes "the task of the next quarter century is making the shift from easy oil to alternative energy." Another issue is obesity, which has increased greatly in America. There has been an increase in the number of meals that are from fast food restaurants and eaten in large portions. More young people today have a shorter life span than their parents do because of all the unhealthy eating habits that are being developed. Hiemstra also discusses the decrease in global birth rates. This topic is controversial but the global birth rates show that "the end of growth is as near as mid-century." Fewer people could be benificial for the environment but it is hard to predict whether a decrease in the population could be a good or bad thing overall. Other things that could change our future are nanotechnology, nano-solar cells, biotechnology, invisible computing, and constant communication,

South Park's Vision of the Future

http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=1012
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/1013/Go-God-Go-XII.html

As you can tell, these links are to South Park episodes. Despite it's crude nature, South Park has become the only reasonably comparable animated series to The Simpsons. Both shows have been on television for as far back as I can remember. What I primarily remember about both shows is that my parents would never let me watch either of them because they deemed the shows "too graphic and obscene" for me. But what my parents missed and what most people miss is in the details. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, thoroughly express their opinions through their show. What I'm getting at is that, after watching these episodes linked above, you can see them both on two levels: superficially or analytically. On the superficial level, both episodes are completely ridiculous. They're both extremely graphic, vulgar, and really have no redeemable message. On the other hand, you can see it as Stone and Parker's vision of the future. In this manner, they invent a tumultuous future where war wages between different sects of Atheists. Though one of these groups is a super-intelligent species of otters, the show nonetheless skillfully predicts the future while entertaining. I won't say I find their predictions of the future to be likely, but instead I'll say they have redeemable qualities. For example, their future is completely religionless. Society has come to be governed by science and logic. I see these episodes as qualifiably probable visions of the future and if nothing else, they serve as another ridiculously entertaining way to pass the time until the future gets here.

Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions

http://listverse.com/history/top-30-failed-technology-predictions/

Keeping with the theme of my earlier blog posting, I found a list of thirty failed technology predictions. These failed predictions range from movies to automobiles. I found it extremely interesting that the number one failed prediction was about computers. I guess I wouldn’t be as surprised about this if I had been born before computers were considered ordinary. Another surprising item on this list was about phones. It was once considered impossible to talk to other people across the country, and now it’s as common as ever. This list just goes to show that practically nothing is impossible when it comes to developments in technology. What was once considered preposterous is now normal, which means that what is considered outrageous now, may possibly be the norm in the future.

World Future Society Top Ten

While I was looking for interesting information for a good post, I came across this really interesting website. The website is basically a forum for The World's Future Society, a place for people who basically want to collaborate on the future. They have a magazine, annual national conventions, "forecasts," articles, and tips for anything from preserving your home to preserving your life for another 100 years. Pretty interesting overall, and I really hope everyone takes a look at this. I left a link to one of my favorite forecasts: http://www.wfs.org/forecasts.htm

Political Cartoons

These are four political cartoons that I found while surfing the internet. The first one depicts how many Americans often have trouble separating real news and reporting with the comedy of shows such as SNL, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. The second cartoon focuses on the McCain campaign's reliance of connecting to the common man or "Joe the Plumber". John McCain and Sarah Palin both actively try to depict themselves as average americans in order to relate to the middle class on a more personal level, and hopefully win their vote. The last two cartoons demonstrate how the same idea can be illustrated in different ways. Both cartoons illustrate how many believed that Sarah Palin's debate performance surpassed the low expectations of many americans. Political cartoons are a form of visual rhetoric because they attempt to persuade the reader into agreeing with the artist's point of view.

Next World

I found out that the Discovery Channel has a webpage devoted to futuristic themes. Many articles are written about futuristic weapons, pictures are posted similar to ones we have seen in Yesterday's Tomorrow, other new technology is discussed as well as expert predictions and interactive puzzles... I especially Like Harley Earl's Concept Cars. He designed cars that were supposed to be visionary cars for the time periods they were built/designed in. I know some of you guys were writing about weapons/war and I thought it might be interesting for you all to check it out.

The concept cars he designed were innovative. He came up with ideas such as replacing rearview mirrors with cameras that would show images of the road on screens located on the dashboard. This was in 1958. This particular car is the 1958 Firebird that was made to work with high tech highways that followed automated driving systems, that have yet to be invented today. His ideas were way ahead of his time.

Future of Politics

I found this cartoon interesting because it compares a past method of communication with a current method. The Morse Code is what McCain considers "texting." Although I don't know if I agree with the cartoon, it relates to future in politics because it is making fun of McCain for not being up to date with technology. I think its interesting that technology is a factor in comparing presidential candidates now, and that McCain could be made fun of something so simple as not knowing how to "text" or being really old fashioned. It just shows that times are changing and the future of political campaigns could rely on evolving technology.

The Skateboard

The cars we drive have long reflected changes in our society with their style and function. Cars of the 50's and 60's were large, gleaming spaceship, echoing the sterile aura of the times. The commuting suburbanite and the weekend adventurer popularized the SUV. Today, with the ever present of issue of the environment, as well as perpetually rising gas prices, on America's mind, hybrid and alternative fuel technology is all the rage. Also today, the ability to personalize and customize is a prevalent theme in cars. People put bells and whistles and pretty much everything but the kitchen sink into, on top of and below their rides. This is all made superficial with the creation of The Skateboard, the world's most advanced chassis. All of the Skateboard's technology is stored inside the slim 6 inch frame including the engine-less, hydrogen propulsion system. The Skateboard is completely clean, it's only by product is pure water. The true beauty of the Skateboard lies in its flexibility. Designers can make whatever car they can dream up and apply it to the Skateboard system. Consumers will be able to purchase the different frames and with little difficulty totally transform their automobile. The Skateboard will allow one to pimp their ride like never before.

"Evan's Two Moms" - Quindlen's mastery of rhetoric

In the piece, "Evan's Two Moms", Anna Quindlen truly hones in on the emotional testimonies of gay and lesbian couples, almost allowing her pathos to outweigh the rest of her argument. Before the article even begins, the reader is exposed to Quindlen's impressive writing background. With such credentials as being "the third woman to become a New York Times Op-Ed columnist" and the 1992 Pulitzer Prize winner, Quindlen establishes her ethos early. 

Opening with the story of Evan, a six-year old boy with two moms, Quindlen is able to hit the readers with pathos pretty early on. Describing the family as a typical American family, "a kid, a psychologist, a pediatrician", Quindlen is allowing the audience to see the family in a more relatable light. Quindlen inserts testimony after testimony in the article, hoping to depict the surprisingly numerous similarities the straight and gay families posses. Sexual orientation aside, they all want the same things - "to spend their lives together". Through ethos, but mainly pathos, Anna Quindlen effectively argues the need for more gay rights. 

so what's it going to be?

In "Evan's Two Moms," Anna Quindlen argues gay marriage should be legalized. Same sex marriage is an issue that has come up time and time again in recent years. Especially when celebrities get involved e.g. the marriage of Ellen DeGeneres to Portia de Rossi in California, one of three states that acknowledges same sex marriage, several months ago. But once all the excitement of new wedding photos dies down the topic hits the backburner to issues of the war in Iraq and the failing economy. In times like these it's hard to see what the big deal is with the issue of approving same sex marriage when you compare it to others.
Quindlen makes you think twice about this kindof mind-set when she sheds light on the prejudices couples of the same sex face. She writes about couples moving from lawyer to lawyer trying to obtain legal protections that heterosexual couples are granted automatically. Same sex couples cannot have joint tax returns or receive health insurance benefits from Social Security. Quindlen writes about some of the obstacles same sex couples have faced like a lawyer in Georgia whose job offer was retracted after the attorney general discovered she and her partner were planning a marriage ceremony and a couple in Wisconsin who were turned down at the Y for a family membership because they were both female.
Quindlen then compares the struggles of gay marriage to those of interracial marriage. She writes at the time of Loving vs. Virginia sixteen states had laws against interracial marriage. Richard and Mildred Loving's one year sentence was suspended under the term that the couple would leave the state. The Supreme Court declared the barring of interracial marriage unconstitutional in 1967. Quindlen argues that in the future we will see the barring of gay marriage just as absurd as the barring of interraical marriage would be now.
Quindlen has a very persuasive argument on gay marriage. She is a credible resource as a graduate of Barnard College and Pulitzer Prize winner for Commentary. She holds more honorary doctrates than I'd care to name. With writers like Quindlen bringing the issue of gay marriage front and center in their articles it makes a reader on the fence about the topic wonder why there isn't a simple solution. Give them the same rights as heterosexual couples or don't give them the same rights. Give them marriage rights or don't give them marriage rights. It definitely leaves you pondering more about it than you had before you read the article.

"Blocking Care for Women"

In an opinion editorial from the New York Times called "Blocking Care for Women," Hilary Rodham Clinton and Cecile Richards claim that the new rule proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services seeks to challenge women's rights and threaten women's health. The proposed rule allows health care providers to discern for themselves whether or not to aid in any treatment they object to. Clinton and Richards emphasize the dangers of denying women access to medical services such as abortions, sterilization and contraception. The writers claim that women's access to "controversial" treatments such as these is limited solely based on the moral convictions or religious beliefs of individual physicians or health care entities. Clinton and Richards also claim that, because of this proposed rule, women may be neglected sufficient advice about their options especially in regards to contraception.

 I find this opinion editorial very persuasive. It appeals to my moral obligations not only as a reader, but also as a woman, and because of this i too support their fight against the "undermining of women's rights and women's health by placing ideology ahead of science." The op-ed concludes with the writers addressing the reader in effort to inspire them to voice their opinions about the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period. I found this exceptionally persuasive because Clinton and Richards actually seek the help of all readers who are willing to take a stand for everything that women face to lose through the passing of the proposed rule.

100 Teraflops? Petaflops?

Can you imagine having the ability to perform 100 million million calculations per second in your head? Yeah, neither can I, but for supercomputers such possibilities are endless. Supercomputers design fuel-efficient cars, map DNA, explore outer-space and even make potato chips. Purple, a supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, can even simulate nuclear explosions in a few billionths of a second. I can't fathom doing anything in less than a second, better yet a billionth?!

Last September the Department of Energy and IBM contracted together to build the next generation supercomputer, Roadrunner, "one capable of sustaining a speed of 1,000 trillion calculations per second, or one petaflop." This supercomputer will have the ability to more accurately forecast the future climate of the Earth and also assist in constructing NASA's new space ship Orion, set to launch in 2018.

From the 1997 victory by Deep Blue, IBM's chess playing computer with the ability to calculate 200 million moves a second, against Gary Kasparov to the construction of Roadrunner, we can only imagine what will become of supercomputers and their power in the next 10 years.

Here is the CNN story: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/12/05/supercomputers/index.html

The Future of Education

The entrance of the internet into the classroom has changed the way we educate our children. For example, the SPURS program could not have existed twenty years ago. The time it would have taken to mail the rough drafts back and forth would have made it unfeasible. It is amazing that college students can connect with students from an under-privledged high school in this way.

This made me think of other futuristic ways of tackling problems in education. Teach for America is a program that recruits college grads to teach in under-privledged schools for two years. It is especially useful in dealing with the lack of quality science, math, and foreign language teachers. This novel idea has improved the education of many students. Check out the website if this is something you want to learn more about. I think it is a really cool idea.

http://www.teachforamerica.org/

Jordan's Post

The 2008 Olympics was nothing short of spectacular. From the athleticism to the opening and closing ceremonies, every aspect of the competition was planned effortlessly. This clip adds a sci-fi and comical perspective to the future of the Olympics. If you are familiar with these SNL shorts, you know that Andy Samberg LOVES taking very abstract, ridiculous ideas and making them completely comical. This is not one of his better ones but its still funny, both the idea...and his outfit. Enjoy!

10 Fascinating Buildings Never Built

http://listverse.com/history/10-fascinating-buildings-never-built/

This list depicts ten buildings that were never built due to various problems that arose in planning such massive structures. The earliest drawing of a futuristic building on this list is 1891 and the newest one is from 2004. All of these buildings are massive in their design. What’s particularly interesting about this is that the building topping the list was planned by Hitler. However, it was never built due to the war. Also, there is a building on this list that was considered for the rebuilding of Ground Zero in Manhattan. Accompanying every picture of these architectural designs are interesting facts that either describe why the building was never built or how the design came to be. I’ve been studying the evolution of architecture and how it is transforming in order to shape emerging technologies, and I found that this list of buildings was extremely intriguing due to the various visions of future architecture depicted. Most of these buildings were never built because they were so intricately designed that they would provide numerous difficulties in building. These buildings of the future, designed so many years ago, provide a basis for what architecture may look like in the coming future. If our technology continues to expand, we might see some buildings like these built within our lifetime.

School of the Future...then and now

1950's School of the Future


Modern-day School of the Future



I researched technology's effects on education, so I youtubed "School of the Future" and found these two examples. The first one is probably from sometime in the 1950's and it's predictions of furture education was not in computers but in homely skills such as sewing and cooking for girls and advanced "shop" classes for boys. This "state of the art" approach assumes classic gender roles, despite it being a "school of the future", and even states "these girls are going to make great housewives". The modern-day School of the Future, from the second video, teamed up with Microsoft to build a technologically advanced super school with environmentally friendly architecture, laptops given to every student enrolled, and the entire educational program revolves around preparing kids to be tech-savy in the real world. It's interesting to see how the same title can have such different connotations with a mere matter of decades dividing the two. The difference reflects past and current social and professional norms and how they effect education.

Stephen's Town Hall

This is a clip from the Colbert Report that talks about the appearances of the candidates at the debate last night. Stephen makes fun of the idea that the town hall format allows for candidates to dress in a more relaxed fashion. This correlates to our class discussion about arguments based on character. A candidate's appearance can make a huge difference as to how they are perceived by citizens, and is a way for them to establish credibility in the political community.

Muhammad Ali on the Vietnam War

http://openvault.wgbh.org/saybrother/MLA000938/index.html

Malcolm X: By Any Means Necessary

Giuliani on Obama