Hillary Clinton: New Energy, New Jobs

"Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America's energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs." A bold and firm stance for the ever so popular Hillary Clinton for the 2008 presidential election. Just how does she propose to accomplish all this and how is she suading those who vote to support her argument? At first glance many people do not read into what is said in the article and how she goes about it. This article on New Energy and New Jobs uses certain rhetorical stategies including the appeals of logos and pathos to support her thesis and stance on the issues of energy and new jobs by the dilivery and arranement of the material.

The first words written here are here thesis, "Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America's energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs." It is a very strong thesis, boldly stated and clearly defined. She wants to create new and more evironmentally friendly energy and new jobs, a proper and fitting description of her stance on the issue. She plans to implement these effects by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eighty percent by 2050 and by cutting foreign oil imports to a third of what it is now by 2030. It is an effective scare tactic, "Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis." This appeals to logos because a voter has been address about this crisis and therefore logically they will want to take action and in this case the answer is by voting Hillary into office. However, before one decides to vote for Hillary, one must know the steps she wishes to take to acheive this goal.

The process Hillary has devised to correct our energy and climate process is illustrated and classified in the fourth and fifth paragraph of the article. For example "Hillary would transform our economy from carbon-based to clean and energy efficient, jumpstarting research and development through a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund and doubling investment in basic energy research." People are able to see how this fits into a larger scheme when she goes on to say "She would also spur the green building industry by funding the retrofitting and modernization of 20 million low-income homes," an appeal to pathos for those lucky 20 million low-income home owners for a home makeover would improve the quality of life of those lucky many. So far her argument is a strong one and very firm relying on evidence and kairos, adressing the present concerns of out time like those of global warming, the use of energy, and the stability of our economy. In the sixth paragraph her rhetorical approach changes drastically.

"To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort." Wow, that is a bold and drastic leap in order to get the whole nation from homeowner to business involved across the nation. Just how does she plan on doing this? "Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology . . ." Note in both of these quotes the use of verbs. She uses "urge" and "ask" both of which may not produce any effect. For all we know stakeholders and large companies may say no. However, the way the material is delivered and aranged puts emphasis on the action by setting up a series without repeating the verb. This creates a logos appeal called post hoc fallacy. When reading the material we overlook the verb and take the actions as concrete, like they will happen, when actually none of them may happen. Therefore the cause and the effect can esilly confused or misinterpreted leading to a hasty generalization of the effect.

To support this hasty generalization the evidence is stacked with examples. "A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence; An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs; . . ." The other hasty generalization is that new jobs will be created. It is stated in the thesis of the first sentence but no where is it substatially supported creating the logical fallacy called red herring.

The effect logos and pathos along with all the other rhetorical appeals create a strong argument that seems to be very effective when supporting a thesis in elections such as this. Overall there is yet one more strategy this article uses, the advertisers stance. It is a strategy that will effectively bring in voters for Hillary Clinton by avoiding the ethos of the candidate and the quality of the text. It is like buying a product oblivious to the character of the product; that is exactly what this article wants-to win votes by ignoring certain details and appealing to what seems important to the reader!

Budweiser, we got canned! (observation)

"Green buddies, I got some bad news. Uh, WE GOT CANNED" Two frogs and one lizard each on their own rock are making a commercial in a commercial to advertise-BEER. Specifically, Budweiser. BUD frog has a deep resonating voice while ERR has the voice of someone mocking somebody acting stupid. The lizard never seems to shut up. Here they are in the middle of the swamp and more importantly in the middle of a scene for a commercial and the lizard can not stick to the script which leads to this dramatically hysterical conversation where one frog is up set, the other confused, while the lizard if freaking out because the frogs can actually talk! After the lizard announces the news, BUD's eye immediately opens wide because the lizard actually got his attention with something. Before, the frogs were just ignoring the lizard and sticking to the script for the commercial. ERR is so confused and shocked by the news he comically says he's going to get sick and starts hyperventilating. The lizard replies with put your head between your legs...honestly like that is really going to work. BUD is frustrated with it all but still considers ERR and asks for someone to get him a bucket for ERR. The selling point of the whole commercial is when the other lizard watching from a distance says with his own deep authoritive voice, "Now how is that supposed to sell beer?" and at that moment the Budweiser logo pops up in the bottom right corner. Of course its going to sell beer because the commercial is absolutely hilarious. After people see it and go to the store to buy beer, what would be a greater influence than that funny commercial that BUDWEISER had on TV the other day?!

BUD-ERR, we got canned!

Now how is that supposed to sell beer?!

Well there are several rhetoric strategies utilized in the sequence of the frog Budweiser commercials. These commercials just so happen to be one of the best advertising campaigns ever. They are a series of commercials that narrate a story involving three frogs, two lizards, and a ferret; it is a commercial in a commercial where the frogs and later two frogs and a lizard are reading a script with single syllables. Who would have thought that frogs saying the syllables composing the word BUD-WEIS-ER could be so effective? The first and most prominent rhetoric strategy is that of narration. These commercials, in order to properly work, are build on the story line of three frogs getting the job for a Budweiser commercial. However, in this video, a lizard has replaced the "weis" frog due to a hyperactive twitch. This is explained in previous videos leading to this one. The fact that the first commercial was such a hit, Budweiser decided to expand upon this hilarious and brilliant idea. The second most important rhetoric strategy used is that of pathos. There is nothing more catching to an audience than that of humor. The lizard believed here that the frogs could only say BUD, Weis, and ER. When this idea is contradicted after he tells the frogs they lost their job, the lizard goes into this hillarilously hysterical mode of confusion between the frogs and the lizard. ER frog doesn't know what "canned" means while the other frog is wondering what is going on while the lizard is caught in the middle of it all still stuck on the fact that the frogs can talk! What does any of that have to do will selling beer? Budweiser used a technique here that distracts the audience with the storyline and the humor contained within. Also, there is this analogy of frogs to beer. Neither one goes together without the storyline. The frogs are part of a commercial where they say Bud, Weis, and Er to advertise beer within this commericial. Thats the only connection, yet it seems to work. And finally in the end, the other lizard states, "Now how is that supposed to sell beer?! " It confuses the audience into the thought that it isn't in any way supposed to sell beer, but look out. To me that is reverse psychology!

Zaireeka Reflection

Zaireeka, a music of vivid conjuration that causes active participation, is like no music ever heard in today's world. The combination of sound in surround had such dramatic effects on me as a listener. I constantly found myself searching for the sounds; they were not exactly put together in a fluid way like music today. One had to actively combine sounds and at the same separate them from each other. At times I found the sounds waves overpowering my senses. One particular spot in track one set my mind spinning! It reminded me of a video game where the character becomes overwhelmed by everything happening so quickly causing his vision to blur and mix all the events together as one. Amazingly, the sound shifts from this into something simple right back into something very complex. This can be compared to pointillism like in painting. When you step back, everything works together as one image, but up close one see thousands of dots that seem to have no correlation to one another. In order for the image to work, the viewer's eyes have to merge the dots instead of viewing them individually. This is the exact same concept used when listening to these four Cd's. The listener is not given the overall picture/sound but has to discern it from all the information flooding into our eyes and ears. Just how does one go about comprehending all of these sound waves? Each person seems to show a different reaction to this music. Some are enthralled by it, others become curious, and yet others seem too overwhelmed to want to discern the music. It makes me question just who the target audience is. What is the goal and purpose of the music. Entertainment . . .that really doesn't seem to fit. I guess one can only elaborate an answer after listing to the music known as-Zaireeka.