Elf from the woodland Realm

Here Is the Audio

I just want to start off and say that I think Dennis Kucinich, the congressman from Ohio looks like a little elf. Now that thats out of my system I can talk about his speech “Wake Up America” that he presented at the Democratic National Convention.

First I want to say that if you get the chance to watch a video version of the speech I would, because Kucinich jumps all over his podium its quite humorous. But the audio will do just as well. The title of the speech “Wake Up America” is a phrase that Kucinich repeats over and over again. Kucinich's point is that we as Americans need to “wake up” and see that the oil companies are screwing us over, and that the government under the bush administration is screwing us over.

What Democratic Convention speech could be complete without a reference to the oil crisis? Kucinich states that if we do not do something gas will get to 10 dollars a gallon! He states we went into Iraq for oil and oil alone. I guess the acronym should have told us that; Operation Iraqi Liberation. Kucinich questions our pratical values with that statement. Is a war worth fighting if we have to work an hour and a half for a gallon of gas. (I am from Texas minimum wage is only 6.25 cents)

Kucinich plays on the stereotype that all the Bush Administration did was make our economy horrible. Its true that most American's don't approve of the Bush Administration so saying this is probably a good idea. He then states that we can't afford to have another four years of the Bush Administration implying that John McCain and Sarah Palin are the same as George Bush and Dick Chaney. Personally I don't see Sarah Palin shooting anyone in the ass though.

Dennis Kucinich states that over time we pay four times more for De fence three times more for gasoline and home heating oil and two times more for health care. He states that if there was an Olympic event the administration would win for Miss leading, Miss managing, and Misappropriating, which by the way is nice alliteration, the bush administration would take the gold. I disagree because China would cheat. He uses Alliteration to better make his point. Making each word more remember able. He also uses the Olympics because they are still fresh on peoples minds.

Individually I think Dennis Kucinich puts a lot of presure on us. He warns us of all the bad things that could happen. He reminds us of all the bad things happening and all the bad things that have happened. He gives us a glimpse of the future telling us we must change we must “wake up” or else we are going to be living a very bad four to eight years.

Dennis Kucinich wants a lot of things, most would raise taxes significantly but I'm not going to get into that, He states all the things that he wants at the end. However he doesn't tell us how he would like to achieve those things. For instance he states that he wants better health care, and he wants better education, and lower gas prices. All those things are going to cost money. And a lot of it. He avoids talking about the negative things, The Democratic Convention is not a place where you should talk about that anyways.

I do find some contritions within his argument. For instance he is for many things such as universal health care yet he says that the cost of health care has gone up. If we have universal health care won't that just make taxes go up? Also if we tax the oil companies more they are just going to forward the prices on the consumers. I do find it weird that he would complain about the cost of living being so high at the beginning of his speech and then go on to state all the things that we need which would make the cost of living go up even higher. Its very interesting.

Overall Dennis Kucinich ends his speech by saying up with the democratic party and then endorses Borok Obama and Joe Biden. This is expected at the convention so there was no surprise there.

IVE WOKEN UP!

In Dennis Kucinich's speech "Wake up America", he warns America of the bad path that they have been going down due to the Bush Administration. He uses gas prices, the economy and the ram pit losses that Americans are feeling right now. The title of the speech "Wake up America" is a calling for all American citizans to finally wake up and see what has been hapining the last eight years. We all need to "wake up" and see the facts.

Oh the Bush Administration. Kucinich doesn't waste any time before bombing them. "Now, if there were an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating, this administration would take the gold." He is of course referring to misleading us into war - lets be honest it was for oil, mismanaging or economy and misappropriating funds to the war on Iraq. Kucininch really does not like the bush administration at all.

"Now, this administration can tap our phones. They can’t tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. But they can’t open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. But they lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline and electricity skyrockets. Now, they have skillfully played our post-9/11 fears, and they’ve allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many." In this skillful rant Dennis Kucinich both promotes and complements the Democratic Party but also bashes Bush. He reminds us that under the Bush administration defended and enabled CALEA, which forced all telecommunications providers to allow the government to "listen in" on our phone calls. He then tells us that the the government used 9-11 to go to war, a theory that many people are subscribing to now.

He also talks about Gas Prices a lot, he says that we went into Iraq for oil. His opening statement "Wake up, America! In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neocon artists seized the economy and added $4 trillion of unproductive spending to the national debt." sets his tone as angry at the oil companies and angry at the government for letting the oil crisis happen. Not to mention the home crisis and the other crisis we have had to endure over the last eight years. "Wake up, America! We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10-a-gallon gasoline. The oil administration, they want to drill more, into your wallet." In this part of his speech Kucinich takes an even more aggressive tone he wants people to know that we did not go to war for revenge we went to war for oil! People need to relies that oil is power now look at Russia they took over Georgia for oil whats to say we wont take over Iraq or Iran for oil?

One thing that Kucinich does well is list, he lists a bunch of things that are currently wrong with the goverment implying that if we elect Obama and Biden the problems will be fixed. "Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their healthcare, their pensions. Trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war paid for with borrowed money. Tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons disappeared into thin air, at the cost of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis, while all the President’s oilmen are maneuvering to grab Iraq’s oil." All these hardships have happend or gotten worse in the last eight years. It is true that since September 11th Americans have lost alot of jobs. The New York Times stated that "The national recession and the attack on the World Trade Center cost New York City 47,000 more jobs than previously believed, bringing the city's total job losses to about 223,000 in the last two years, according to new data released yesterday." Kucinich states that we really need to fix the problems we have here before we go off and make more of them.

In his conclusion Dennis Kucinich wraps up by Yelling all the things that he wants; "Now, this is not a call for you to take a new direction from right to left. This is a call for you to go from down to up. Up with the rights of workers! Up with wages! Up with fair trade! Up with creating millions of good paying jobs, rebuilding our bridges, our water systems, our sewer systems, our ports! Up with creating millions of sustainable energy jobs to lower the cost of energy, lower carbon emissions and protect the environment! Up with health care for all! Up with education for all! Up with home ownership! Up with guaranteed retirement benefits! Up with peace! Up with prosperity! Up with the Democratic Party! Up with Obama-Biden!" This forceful call to action ends on a bright note inspiring the party for their hopeful victory to come.

Formula for Failure

In the heat of a political battle, selecting an astute vice president can give any presidential candidate, democratic or republican a great boost, but selecting a less then stellar VP can really hinder a presidential hopefuls chances. John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, may prove to be detrimental as seen from her debut speech at the Republican National Convention.
She begins her speech by praising John McCain and moves quickly to the introduction of her family to the American public. Then she transitions to her life in Alaska and lastly, finishes by bashing the Obama Campaign. She devotes most of her speech to introducing us to her family and cracking down on Barack Obama.
In the introduction of her family, she introduces everyone including her husband, Todd, newborn baby boy, Trig, and even her parents. Palin only leaves out one member of her family, her seventeen-year-old daughter, who happens to be pregnant, bringing attention to that might not be such a good idea since the daughter isn’t currently married to the father of the child. She moves on after introducing her family to talking about the hard working people of Alaska stating, “…we grow good people in our small towns…praised Harry Truman”. She uses a quote about Harry Truman to describe the people of her tiny town in Alaska. Now, what’s strange about this statement is that president Harry Truman was a democrat. Why would Palin praise him and then later in her speech bash democratic ideals?
Palin then takes the time to inform us of all the great things she has contributed to the state of Alaska. Her contributions may have helped get her the VP position but, rather than listing past accomplishments, she should have listed her plans for improving the future of America. As the saying goes, it’s not where you’re coming from, but rather where you’re going. She mentions how we must “challenge the status quo”. Challenge the “status quo”, by selecting McCain for President? Odd, seemingly because the current “status quo” is the Bush Administration and by selecting McCain that would, rather than challenge the “status quo”, continue the current ways of the government.
It continued to catch my attention that Sarah Palin was contradicting herself through the entire speech. When speaking of the war in Iraq she claims, “victory in Iraq is in site” and claims that Obama wants to pull out even though victory is near. Well, if victory is close then why is the McCain administration planning on staying in Iraq forever, if needed? Her constant jabs at Obama seemed rather to be her own hubris, as seen with the Iraq war statement but, also with her take on drilling for oil. She says that Obama points out the obvious by saying drilling is not the answer but, then continues to say that something has to be done about oil. It’s understood that the vice president has the job of verbally putting down the rival party’s candidate but Palin’s attempts to hurt the Obama campaign backfired on her because of her constant contradictory statements.
When Palin finally manages to get to what she can bring to the White House she makes statements that seemingly sound like promises rather than plans. They have no depth or support to them, just plain old promises, kind of like something a sixth grader would say when running for an ASB position at school.
While the content of her speech caused issues for Palin, her weak communication with her audience made her debut speech less then stellar as well. Throughout the entire speech Palin pauses for a second and then continues with her thought. The pauses came off as a lack of ideas from Governor Palin. It made it seem like her speech was being “winged” rather then being thoughtful and concise. Palin may have not had a teleprompter, but if she did it certainly seemed like she was ignoring it at times. Her biggest communication blunder came when she was talking about terrorism and Iran’s vice grip of power on the United State’s foreign allies. While talking about terrorism she begins to stumble over her words and has to restate herself. Being that terrorism is a major fear in the United States having the possible future Vice President stumble over her take on how to stop terrorism is not a very comforting sign.
One could give Palin the benefit of the doubt since she is being thrown into the fire of a heated political showdown. It’s true she came from a small city in Alaska and to be put into an auditorium full of people, possibly her awe may have gotten to her during her speech and caused her to make statements that under regular circumstances she would have avoided. With that said, Palin must be ready for these type of scenarios. She is not talking from a governor’s point of view anymore but, rather from the role of a United States of America leader. Being that this was her debut speech it would have done her well to give us more of an understanding of who Sarah Palin really is. From the speech we get two views of Sarah Palin, which is real and which is the façade is yet to be determined.





A Hole in One


In the heat of a political battle, selecting an astute vice president can give any presidential candidate, democratic or republican a great boost. Sarah Palin, the selection for VP for the Republican Party brings an insurmountable boost to the McCain campaign. Her solid repertoire was displayed clearly in her debut speech at the Republican National Convention.
Sarah Palin, a relatively unknown entity in the political world, opens her speech in a fitting way. Since she is relatively new to the American public, Palin introduces the members of her family and goes on to give the audience an idea of who she is. She jokes around by saying, “ the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick”. By opening up to her audience and “breaking the ice” from the beginning, she seemed to be backed by the republican supporters throughout the whole night.
While describing the people of her small town in Alaska she refers to a quote about Harry Truman, “…we grow good people in our small towns…praised Harry Truman”. The reason this statement is astounding is because being a republican, she still recognizes Harry Truman, a democrat, for his strong values while President. This shows that, Palin gives credit where credit is due. One can also discern from this statement that regardless of political party and differences, Palin is able to see the good in rivals.
Palin then proceeds to inform us of her past accomplishments in the state of Alaska. She mentions how she began as the president of the PTA at her children’s school and later progressed to becoming the mayor of her small town and ultimately, received the highest honor of her state by being elected governor. Her credentials and experience make her an ideal candidate for the vice presidency. Her qualifications far out weigh those of rival party candidate Barack Obama. Her strong background will provide an effective complement to McCain, given that he’s elected president.
Speaking about her home state of Alaska she mentions that while she was governor, money was sent from Washington D.C. for the building of the “bridge to nowhere”. She took the money that was sent and reinvested it into the people of Alaska rather than waste it on building a pointless bridge. Palin also explains how a tax was put on the oil of Alaska; she took the money from those taxes and used it to aid Alaska’s development. From this, one can see that Palin is an iconoclast, she is not afraid to break the rules in order to fight for what she feels is right. Palin’s ability to march to the beat of her own drummer is rather admirable for it shows that she is unafraid to stare criticism in the eyes.
Palin’s iconoclastic ways can be partly contributed to her being fairly young in age. This provides a perfect compliment to McCain. This is because McCain being older comes off positively to the elder members of American society, who support traditional American ideals. While, the younger generation identifies well with Palin because of her youthfulness and movement towards change. Her points about her actions while governor of Alaska are the reason why I make this point because having separate ideals provides a perfect yin and yang between John McCain and Sarah Palin.
From the speech one can also pick up on Sarah Palin’s powerful charisma. Her ability to identify with her audience makes her ideals come off as appealing, weather one agrees or disagrees with them. Throughout this entire political race Obama has been looked up to for his power and charisma while making his speeches, but from Palin’s speech it’s safe to say that she may have just as much power and charisma if not more than senator Obama. Listening to her speech one almost forgets that she is only the vice president candidate because of her effective speaking one she comes of as the person running for president rather than John McCain.
At the national convention the job of the vice president candidate is to bash the opposition’s presidential candidate. Palin does this exact thing. She picks apart the flaws in senator Obama’s plans, yet still maintains her dignity by not caustically attacking her opponents. Rather she uses humor and sarcasm to get her points across.
For her debut speech Palin does an excellent job. She’s brand new to the American public and after hearing her speech it almost feels like Palin is someone who has been in the political spotlight for years. Her speech provides excellent support for why she is highly credible for the vice president position. She is able to juggle her three lives of being a politician, a mother, and a wife. She is a lady who wears many hats and wears them well. The selection of Sarah Palin for vice president may provide John McCain with the boost needed to overcome the Democratic candidate and vault him to the ultimate position of leadership in America, President.

What ever it takes.

As Niccolo Machiavelli said “The ends justify the means”. This means do whatever it takes to reach the goal that has been set. Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska is Senator McCain’s choice for the Vice President position. She is a conservative republican, who is far right in the political spectrum. She gave her speech accepting her Vice president nomination at the national republican convention. She uses her speech as a means to the white house.
Governor Palin opens her speech with an introduction to her family. She does this to connect to the people of the United States because everyone has a family. For instance she explains how she met her husband: “we met in high school, and two decades and five children later; he’s still my guy”. This builds a bridge to the rest of America because it displays her commitment, and builds a bridge to the voters of America. She does all this to attract attention to her and get the vote from the families of America. Everything she says is planned to show a positive light on her. But who does not try to make themselves look good in speeches?
Palin also goes on the offensive and puts Senator Obama down in several comments. For example, during the speech she states “a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities”. Seeing as Senator Obama was once a community organizer, she uses that as a way to diminish his professional experience. Magnifying the opponent’s weakness is a great way to make one’s campaign look much stronger.
She attacks Senator Obama again in the middle of her speech. She states that Obama has never authored “a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate”. This tactic is insightful because they point out the weakness in the opponent’s game plan. Using this offensive maneuver while supporting it with her own ideas to improve the country; makes a tough candidate to beat.
She also promotes her ideas for improving America. She has a plan to “challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave the nation better than when we found it”. To do this she has plans to produce America’s own oil and gas. For example, if she wins she plans to “lay more pipelines, and build more nuclear plants, and create jobs with clean coal, and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources”. All those points are good for the economy of the United States, and because the economy is terrible right now, she will earn lots of votes with those points. Stating specific ways to solve problems is a good tactic to win peoples votes in an election.
She makes plans to win the war in Iraq. This is a controversial topic because not everyone wants to fight the war anymore; many people want our leader to pull us out of the Middle East. She explains how Senator Obama “is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word victory except when he is talking about his own campaign”. Sarah Palin clearly wants to win the war in Iraq, but it is controversial if the rest of the country wants to win the war. She backs her statement with her son’s enrolment into the military and her nephew’s joining of the Navy. This makes her claims more feasible because it shows that she is not a leader who sends men to their death and does not feel the hardships of war. Her family is taking the same risks that many other families are taking which make her stance on war stronger.
Sarah Palin uses McCain’s military experience to persuade the public. She preaches that the times McCain spent in Vietnam as a Prisoner of War are much tougher than the times he will spend as president. For instance she explains how being in Vietnam is “a long way from the fear, and pain, and squalor of a six by four cell in Hanoi, to the oval office”. As a Prisoner of War McCain was tortured, malnourished and beaten, but he still fought through the pain. His determination can continue into the white house, where he will once again fight for his country.
Governor Palin includes many tactics in her speech. She uses her family to connect with the public, she uses the offensive to bring her opponents down, and she uses her own ideas and plans to improve America. She also plans to finish the war in Iraq; she has two family members entering the war, and a running mate who knows how wars are fought. All this combined are the means for her to win the election and reach the White House, and she will do what ever it takes to reach that goal.


With Age Comes Wisdom

Parents often have different perspectives than their children. These views are often created by the environment around them. Different generations have conflicting opinions on various subjects, including politics. Sarah Palin made a speech at the republican convention which had a controversial result. People’s opinions changed after hearing this speech, and people of different generations, change their opinion because of different reasons.
Social circles are what cause the change in political opinion between generations. Social circles influence your opinion on everything, including all relates to politics. Sometimes parents are in the social circle which influences the child to have the same political views or opposite views. The youth today tend to talk to their friends more than their parents, which results in their political views opposing the older generations. Political issues magnify the contrast between the different generations and their opinions.
Palin introduces herself in the speech by discussing about her family. She explains how she is a mother and has several kids: “Our family has the same ups and downs as any other, the same challenges and the same joys…”. The introduction of her speech is about her family, which might attract attention to older adults because they can relate to those topics. These younger voters do not have those experiences and therefore cannot relate to Palin. The youth want information that would help them decide who to vote for, such as her qualifications or experiences. She brings out the controversial family topic into the speech, while her party acknowledges that family issues such as Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy is personal and should not be discussed. This is hypocritical because Palin uses her family for her benefit, and does not let the other party counter the argument. This is something all generations can agree on.
Towards the middle of the speech, Palin attacks Senator Obama. She mocks Obama’s experience as a community organizer. For example, during the speech she emphasizes “A small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer except you have actual responsibilities”. These attacks on Obama may be successful on the younger voters or for voters who do not do their research on the presidential candidates. Obama was a community organizer, roughly twenty years ago, since then, he has graduated from Columbia university, he was a public official in Illinois for eight years, he was the president of the Harvard Law Review, and was the Illinois state senator for eight years and a United States senator for four years. For the people who have done the research, Palin’s attempt at mocking Obama clearly portrays Palin’s ignorance. These attacks can send the wrong message to the voters. The older generation or people, who know Obama’s credentials, see the attack as a sign of weakness because the Republican Party has no plans to improve things themselves. The younger generation or those who do not follow politics will hear this and immediately think that Senator Obama is not qualified. Through the attacks on Obama, one can perceive how different generations view politics differently.
She does go over some policies in the middle of her speech. She talks about how she will create alternative energy and drill our own oil. The people of younger generations will not want to drill our own oil. They would prefer alternate recourses to conserve the environment that they will be living in. Environmental issues in general are big issues that younger generations focus on because the problem has been passed onto them by their parents. They can vote for Palin because of her statement to use alternative energy. But Obama also intends to use alternative energy which nullifies Palin’s statement. Younger generations might also be against drilling our oil to conserve the environment. Palin talks about being bullied by Iran, when in reality, the United States gets a majority of its crude oil from Mexico and Canada.
Sarah Palin speaks of plans to win the war in Iraq, but the war in Iraq has been over for several years. For example, she criticizes Obama by stating “this is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign”. There is no reason to be in Iraq as of this point and some older generations know what it’s like to be in combat. They witnessed death and loss of friends; they would not want younger generations to go through the same scenario for no reason. If McCain is unable to continue as president, many people would not be comfortable with Sarah Palin as president. She would have soldiers fighting for no reason instead of focusing on the countries problems. The younger generations also have strong feelings about this topic because many of them have enlisted or have relatives enlisted in the military. They do not want to die or have their family members die for a lost cause. Both generations can have similar opinions.
While different generations have conflicting views on countless topics, they can also agree on just as much. It is impossible to say that the generations all think alike because one can classify generations into smaller groups as well. But each generation has a different perspective on life and environments shape their opinion.

Palin's Empty Rhetoric

As a young adult, it is hard for me to look at Sarah Palin’s speech as anything but a ploy to get McCain and herself elected. Politics are all the same, they appeal to the audience they are talking to, and the candidates only care to become elected and stay elected. While criticism on Palin’s speech ranged from amazing to horrible, I would have to fall somewhere in the middle ground. After all, the woman knows how to make a joke which, although they were somewhat offensive and pertained little to McCain and his goals as president, it gets the audiences excited and involved. Other than that, I felt that Palin overstepped her bounds as Vice President and focused too much on insulting Obama, opposed to actually promoting McCain and what his plans are if he were to become President.

I can understand how Palin was able to get so many favorable remarks about her speech because she did two good things: she used McCain’s past to pull on the heart strings of American and, insulted Obama, something that every Republican would enjoy hearing.
Unfortunately, Palin did not perform to my expectations. She committed a very big mistake. Throughout Palin’s speech, she almost completely avoided any actual substance and had little if any content pertaining to the party platform. Starting in the beginning, Palin talked about her family, which was probably a good idea since she is unknown to many, but that took up time that could have been used to educate the voters on her experience as governor. Sure, she mentioned that she got rid of the “luxury jet” and that Alaska’s “state budget is under control”, but that information is vague. It does not give me specifics. It does not tell me what kind of experience she has, it just tells me that yes, she does have those Republican ideals.

Actually, the only specifics that Palin mentioned during her speech was, the natural pipeline being built in Alaska that would help “lead American to energy independence”. When she mentioned the pipeline, I was given the impression that Palin is interested in helping America become more energy efficient and that she is willing to use our own reserves to do so. Now, that is something that I would like to know about a vice presidential candidate I know nothing about. I would like to know what her priorities are. However, the times she spend discussing this topic was not nearly as long as I would have liked.

Certainly McCain’s platform has been mentioned throughout the primaries and was touched upon during many national convention speeches, but many Americans, or at least me, want to know what it is that the candidates are interested in achieving. I want to know how McCain feels about the economy, the war on Iraq, our foreign policy and trade agreement, and I want to know what he plans on doing when faced with these issues as president and what Palin thinks she can contribute to these issues. Any parties national convention is the time to solidify these issues and that is something that I think that Palin was unsuccessful in doing.

However, Palin focused a lot on the character of McCain and not his platform. Of course it is good to know that McCain is a man of moral character, a man who has fought for his country and is willing to fight for us, but it does not let me know if he is a highly educated man. Palin’s job is to create zeal of McCain which would be better achieved if, at least a main concern of his that sparks interest in constituents, was covered in more detail than that of Obama’s uncalled for remarks.

Palin brought up the idea of Obama’s remarks and his “flaws” much too often. I just do not understand why Obama should be given so much media coverage, good or bad, at the REPUBLICAN national convention. In all seriousness, any and all focus should be aimed at McCain, and Democrat bashing is doing quite the opposite. I do not care that Obama “has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform”, I want to know what McCain has or has not done. I already know he was a P.O.W and fought for his country but I want to know his legislative accomplishments and his aspirations. If McCain has “inspired with his deeds”, tell me what they are.

Palin was put in the perfect position to raise McCain even higher but, she fell short. Although the polls may say differently, Palin was unable to give McCain the boost he deserved by actually highlighting his accomplishment in office, an idea that now seems foreign to politicians running for office. I know Americans are more for a candidate’s looks and his or her family values but Palin, like most candidates before her has lost sight of what is truly important in a candidate; what they stand for in foreign policy and legislation. The republican national convention should be used to educate the masses on McCain’s legislative history because in all honesty, that is some of the only times people will listen. The national conventions of each party always create the most viewers, so Palin should have used that opportunity to get more facts out about herself as well as McCain, not just empty rhetoric.




OBAMA BASHING, PALIN'S SPECIALTY

The most effective and important part of Palin’s speech was the bashing of Obama. Yes, as a Vice President, that is Palin’s job. She is the one who puts the opposition down and she is the one who is supposed to instill excitement and curiosity in the presidential nominee. Opponent bashing, while obviously not the ‘cleanest’ way to go about promoting a candidate, is never the less, effective. Palin, unlike the Obama campaign, which has chosen on most occasions to take the ‘high road’, used her insults for the good of the party. Of course when you put down an opponent it cannot be nice, but the way in which Palin deliberately turns Obama’s good qualities into faulty ones is, proof by the jump in the polls after her speech, successful.

Whether it’s right or wrong is not the issue, the main point in any election is to win. The goal is to persuade the public that your party and your candidate are the best candidates for the job. If that means “dirty politics” I say more power to Palin. She has used her information about Obama and spun it in a way that is beneficial to McCain and the conservative party. After all, the same could be said about Obama and they way he campaigns. Palin even addressed the fact that when Obama goes to different cities and different states, he addresses his constituents differently based on location. It’s the same way with Palin. Obviously at a Republican National Convention, one would hope that the speakers are attempting to instill excitement in voters. And most likely, if you are attending the Republican National Convention you are interested in the Republican Party, most likely a Republican and yes, would like more than anything to show your support for your Republican candidate by putting down the opposing, Democratic candidate. Its simple, Republicans at the national convention want to hear how much better republicans are over the democrats. And to think that Democrats if given the chance wouldn’t boo for McCain, is just plain ludicrous. Palin simply appeased her audience, just like Senator Obama has done numerous times.

The bashing of Obama, which did play a prominent role in her speech, also served to show America what is was that Palin actually believed in. Showing how one’s opponent ideals are wrong is an excellent way to express ones views while also creating excitement for them. Sure, dirty politics is definitely an aspect that turns constituents away from the polls, but in the case of Palin, not only is it her duty as a Vice President at the Republican National Convention to bash on the opposing party, but it is also her duty to create excitement for McCain.

Also, Palin’s use of rhetoric serves to show how much more exciting McCain is as the presidential nominee, and how much more genuine and great he is as an individual. She did not draw him as a great man on the basis of party lines or on the ideas that he believes in, Palin used a pathos argument so show who McCain truly is, an American soldier. Palin told the story of McCain’s youth as a POW and all of the hardships that he faced and even mentioned and individual in the crowd to further intensify the story and turn it into reality. In this situation, it was smart of Palin to use the pathos rhetoric and appeal to the emotions of her viewers. After all, I do not know many American people, especially Republicans, who would disrespect an American solider, who put their life on the line for their country. So, that is how Palin was able to reach out beyond the Republican scope and out to moderates and possibly even democrats to express what a truly amazing individual McCain is.

It becomes easier to see McCain more along the lines of an American, instead of just Republican. A man who has “actually fought for you” and is now attempting to fight for the American people again is an extremely appealing, pleasant, and reassuring idea. I’m sure that Palin, as well as all the other candidates and spectators of this speech know, it’s hard not to believe a man who has put his life on the line for individuals like me and you, and a man who sacrificed so much for his country, would have alternative motives for his fellow citizens. However, Palin promotes the idea of a well rounded individual who isn’t out to make a name for himself. Palin obviously wanted that point to get across and, whether it was by attacking Obama’s motives I think can also be disputed, but it’s clear that by the slogan that he is campaigning and Palin’s speech that McCain puts country first.

Hillary Clinton Surrenders the Spotlight

The speech that I chose was Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Barack Obama. She gave it at the Democratic National Convention as a way of conceded defeat in becoming the Democratic nominee for President. I chose it because the speech had garnered some media attention for Clinton allegedly focusing more on herself and less on her support for Obama. I wanted to see if the accusations were true. The focus of this essay is how rhetorically effective was the speech, so some of the points I will be looking at is how effective the speech is at conveying her message and differences in perceptions. You can find a transcript of the speech and an included video here.

The main purpose of this speech is endorsement. Her introduction isn't so much about that, however. She focused about her commitment to getting nominated and included several heartfelt examples of people who either supported or voted for her. This is an interesting tactic, because while she clearly wanted the nomination, she's also showing that it wasn't just her, but also the people who wanted her to win the nomination. She's demonstrating that this wasn't an easy race. However, once she gets these examples out of the way, Clinton does begin to talk about Obama. She praises him, both for his accomplishments before the race, and for his competitiveness during the race for nomination.

After she mentions Obama, she starts to use a really effective method of bringing the supporters together - first person plural. She starts it by saying "the Democratic Party is a family", and afterwards constantly uses the word we. The effect of this word is that it connects her with the audience and with Obama. Instead of saying you or me, she's making the objectives that she states a mission for everybody. A useful tactic when trying to admit defeat gracefully and at the same time let the crowd relate to her, despite her past. It works, too. Her speech for the next few minutes is constantly interrupted by applause. The audience loves her, even if she did lose.

Hillary also uses repetition to great effect. One of her common phrases was "That's why we need to help elect Barack Obama our president." She would list an objective of the Democratic Party, then repeat the phrase, garnering applause each time. She compared and contrasted her and Obama as challenges to the common idea of who becomes a president. She asked the rhetorical questions "Could a woman really serve as commander-in-chief?" and "Could an African-American really be our president?"

The aforementioned critiques of her speech are seen from a somewhat superficial view. There is some change when analyzing more in depth. She mentions Obama, but the focus isn't about Obama, even when she talks about electing him, or endorsing him. Instead, her examples, her rhetoric focuses on her, whether it means she came in close, or that she was the woman who ran for nomination, it still focused on her ideas as to who the president should be.

One example is that "it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories". She makes no mention of a black candidate, focusing only on her own victories, portraying herself as the pioneer of presidential nominations, ignoring the fact that Obama himself is black and a minority. Why ignore Obama? Because she's resentful and sneaky. This isn't a bad speech by any stretch of the imagination. While the claimed theme is endorsing Obama, the actual focus is her resentment over losing, and in that respect she is achieving exactly that.

What's more interesting is that there will be a difference in how people will perceive this endorsement. The younger generation, inexperienced in the ways of vicious politics will see Clinton as a gracious loser, endorsing Obama as a candidate instead of becoming an independent nominee herself. However, those who have seen such speeches before will realize that Hillary is not focusing on Obama. The older generations have already seen similar cases and know how resentful losers can be. Granted, like all stereotypes this isn't entirely accurate. There will be plenty of younger people who are wholly aware of Clinton's underhanded tactics, as there will be plenty of older people who are taken in by her frozen smile charm.

In conclusion, Clinton gave a great speech. It accomplished the main objective of conceding defeat and endorsing Obama. It roused the crowd to a total of 50 applauses that interrupted her speech, including a final tremendous one at the end. She used repetition, lists, obscure touching examples, all effective tools of winning the hearts and minds of the people. It gave her the spotlight for one final day before she finally would have to give it over to Barack Obama.



It's Always About Her.

Hillary's endorsement of Obama was a farce of an endorsement speech, as it focused little on Obama, and more on her own struggle to gain nomination for the democratic candidate. This speech piqued my interest because it was attacked by the media for being a poor endorsement speech.

After having gone over the transcript and listened to it repeatedly, I'm inclined to agree with the media on this one. From the very beginning, she focuses on her own support. She lists several examples of people who voted for her. The key part of this beginning is that she focuses on the people who voted for -her-, not Obama. One of Hillary's favorite techniques is using the first person plural, as a means of including herself with her listeners.This is effective for bringing together the audience, and connecting with them. However, notably absent is any mention of Barack Obama whatsoever. Thus this inclusive pronoun is in reality exclusive. From the beginning her speech doesn't endorse Obama, it excludes him.

It wasn't until past 7 minutes into her speech that Clinton mentions Obama for the first time. The subject of this speech clearly isn't about endorsing Obama, it's about her struggle to become the nominee. I could equate this to Al Gore using An Inconvenient Truth as a way of mourning his loss in the presidential elections of 2000. Half the time, his talks aren't about global warming, but his ongoing struggle to be the savior of the world. I digress. After mentioning Obama, Clinton goes into a brief summary over his political career, and their brief competition for nomination. However, she soon falls back into the same technique as earlier, using an inclusive pronoun without mentioning Barack. She's including herself in the masses, while keeping Obama decidedly apart.

Don't get me wrong. She definitely endorses Obama in her speech. She even says "That is why we need to help elect Barack Obama our president" 4 times, as a way of saying that he will bring about all good things for the country. However, there's something suspicious about her statement. Obama is mentioned, but not as part of the pronoun, 'we'. Instead, Hillary is once again placing herself amongst the masses, while excluding Obama. She continues to exclude Obama, despite pledging her support, all her plural statements are about her and the voters, but not Obama.

It's at this point where she begins bringing in the fact that they are both minorities running for nomination. She mentions how "people everywhere asked the same questions. Could a woman really serve as commander-in-chief?" and "Could an African-American really be our president?" It was only a matter of time until this happened, because clearly this is such a historic moment in the entire world, despite there being female leaders in countries such as England, or even Chile, considered underdeveloped by the United States.

Additionally, she goes off on a tangent about "what it means to be a woman running for president", despite the fact that she wasn't running for president, but for nomination. It almost looks like Clinton took portions from her now redundant acceptance speech and simply padded it onto her endorsement speech. She talks about how "it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories". Notably absent is any mention about how Obama makes it unremarkable for a black man to run for presidency either. "Unremarkable to think a woman can be the president of the United States", but apparently still remarkable for a black man to win the nomination for democratic candidate. Clinton's not endorsing Obama, she's patting herself on the back for a good race.

Perhaps one of the most annoying characteristics of this speech is the vague, feel good examples of people who Clinton was fighting for, "the single mom", "the woman", "the young man", nothing identifying. The effect of this is that it makes them easier to relate to, but at the cost of making them superfluous and immaterial. There's no way these people could be proved to exist. I will admit, she gives some concrete examples of supporters earlier, but her later use of the less specific examples undermines her credibility with vagueness and feel-good attitude.

In conclusion, Hillary's endorsement speech is not really about Obama, it's about herself. It's about her struggle to become the democratic nominee and subsequent failure, despite all her support from such people as a 13-year-old named Anne Riddell. She uses quite effective rhetoric for a speech, and it's not a bad speech in the least, it just doesn't fulfill the purpose of endorsing Obama. Which begs the question of what is her intention with this speech in the first place? Is it to endorse Obama, or is it to show all the good things she's supposedly done for the Democrats? Feel free to post your thoughts.

Why No I'm Not from Around Here... How Could You Tell?

It seems to me that at least three quarters of everyone I've met at Chapman thus far have been from California. The Golden State. Cali. If you don't know California, you'd better start learning fast.

The parties here don't get busted. They get "rolled." They didn't just have a few people over. It was a "kick-back." Ask someone how some party was? It was gnarly and they are stoked for the next one. Make sure you take "the" 55 if you are headed to the beach, not just 55. And for the record, this is NOT the OC. It's just Orange County. Not to mention it's "BOMB."

These are just a few terms I've come to expect in the short time I've been at Chapman. It may have been my puzzles map or maybe looking clearly clueless over where I as going the first two weeks that pinpointed me as a lost freshman and thank God we've left the blue wristbands of shame behind when orientation ended. As a whole the freshman class sticks out, and apparently I can be pinpointed as from somewhere else fairly easily. 

Am I from around here? What do you think. I'm from a place where you can get a glass of "wudder" with your "hoagie." Where everyone drops the f-bomb in every other sentence, especially when stuck in traffic on I-76 on the way to the birds game. (Speaking of... GO EAGLES!) Road rage always brings out our classiest language. Getting a cheesesteak from Pat's or Gino's? You best get it with "wiz." "Yo" is how we greet everyone. No exceptions.

Where is this magical place I hail from? Philly. Not Philadelphia, just Philly.Our language is different in the city of brotherly love. I wasn't aware of just how different it is till I arrived here. I sound different? Everyone sounds different. I've learned how to pinpoint where others are from based on how they speak. Everyone's always known the thick accents like Boston or Long Island, but it's a craft to recognize the more subtle accents from everywhere across the country. Why wouldn't everyone flock from all over to Orange County? Afterall, It's bomb.

From Seattle or Portland? It's not "hawt" out here. It's hot. From Minnesoooooda? It's Minnesota. Norcal born and bred? Well you've got no hope. I don't even know how to begin to explain "hella." 

We've all scrambled here somehow and finally met people from all over. I wouldn't say language "oppression" is apparent, more just casual social labeling. Oppression is way too harsh of a word. This is Orange County. It's chill. Yes we can tell where people are from, but its not like we hold it against them. Plus that usually just falls into the same conversation we've all had over and over. "Oh you're from so-and-so? What's your major? What dorm are you in?" I think we've all progressed past thank point now.

We all took a little bit of where we're from with us here. We aren't "oppressed" because of it. It'll stick with us always even if our accents fade slightly out into the gnarliness that is SoCal language. So what advice do I have to give? Learn what other people are about, but don't lose touch of your roots. Take pride in where you come from. You were smart enough to find Chapman, you might as well throw your hometown some credit.

Overly Sensitive People

People can take language to seriously. Words obviously have different meanings to different people so then why do people make such a big deal over what is politically correct or offensive. As long as people are not being openly hateful and saying derogatory remarks to whom they are talking about its not wrong right? Maybe it might be a little insensitive and make people desensitized to racism and bigotry, and just be ignoring hate presently in front of you. So why make a big deal out of it?

Some people are overly sensitive and think that certain words should never be used and are very offensive. These people obviously don’t have many friends and don’t know that it’s ok to say “that’s gay” or “your retarded” or “Jesus Christ” because it’s all in good fun.

How can these words be negative if no one in the group finds it offensive? As long as no one hears the oppressive comment it’s not degrading right? It’s not like continuously using these slanderous remarks is making us more and more desensitized to the words. I mean why should a straight person find the saying “that’s so gay” offensive. People don’t actually believe or think that their jokes between friends are actually going to have an impact on the way we think and feel about other people. So this brings up the question of why are these sayings or words thought of as negative and what gives them power.

Ignorant people give words these evil powers. These people go around throwing out words that make no sense in situations giving words meanings that they never previously had. Does it really make sense to call an inanimate object gay or retarded? Sometimes people decide to substitute words such as stupid or difficult with gay giving it new meaning. Some people also make up new words such as "Hella" which means "A great quantity of" and is not offensive in anyway but does not make a lot of sense.

It is bad to be openly hateful to groups of people based color of skin, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation but it is equally harmful to be blindly degrading other people. Friends provide a kind of sheltered environment for us where everyone feels comfortable and does not realize that what our friends believe and say effect what we think and say internally.

Coming from a predominantly white catholic high school I personally do not know much about racial or sexual bigotry. None of my friends throughout my life I can say have been openly racist and hated a particular group of individuals but some had a bad closet case of bias towards others. Most of these biases came from parents, teachers, or role model.

The way people talk, especially people who we respect and look up to, might have an effect on our views and beliefs. If someone is surrounded by negativity and hate it will eventually make some impact on them. So then people should blame their friends and family for their intolerance because they influenced them so they are responsible. Or maybe people should think for themselves and speak what they believe.

It is commonly said that if you do not speak up when something wrong is happening you are just as responsible as the person committing the harmful act. So if one of your friends says to you, "look at that lump of lard of there he must have tried that 30 day McDonalds Diet", are you being just as hateful if you do not say anything about it? No not really unless they laughed then you might be more guilty than him.

Nothing will change if no one says anything though and laughing only encourages the hateful jokes and makes them stronger. So everyone is responsible for themselves and needs to think about what they are doing and who the environment they put themselves in. If you hang out with KKK members on the weekend don’t blame them for turning you into scum and just stereotyping everyone you see. Hell you will probably end up hating yourself.

It’s not the end of the world to say a few jokes people are not going to turn into terribly hateful people over a joke. It is a problem when people take jokes too far or continually makes jokes all the time then the jokes truly becomes hateful and degrading. So be careful and don’t let the people around you have a negative effect on you and make you ignorant to how words should be used because “that would be gay”.

Honestly though there are too many closet case biased people who do not realize that they are a part of the problem. Not a whole lot will get done if people just sit back and say nothing or even worse if you laugh! People need to know that words can be just as harmful as action and create negative stereotypes that change people’s views.

So say something about it so that all the sensitive people in the world who get all upset about not being politically correct will shut up and maybe even make the world a more tolerable place to live for everyone.

God, I hate Mormonism.

I’d like to thank language for the demise of my soul, thank you. It has been greatly misused in my life, mostly in a religious context but also with so-called family. For 18 years I was a shell of human being oppressed by the use of language.

I was raised in the Church of Latter-day Saints of Jesus Christ, more commonly known as Mormonism by innocent heathens. Language is used to create similar thoughts and feelings between members through studying the Book of Mormon and prophets talks. Joining the collective is one of the main reasons to convert.

The “Mormon language” is one in which you simply think good thoughts, believe in all the prophets have written in the Book of Moron, abstain from expressing negative emotions, and refrain from questioning religious leaders and texts. It is devoid of probing questions about the church’s past and use of money.

When I spoke I was told not use swear words, to express bad feelings, or hurtful thoughts. In this way, I was meant to communicate happiness all the time. To be unhappy is a sin; it means you are not thankful for what you have been given by the Lord. After being raised this way for such a long period, I feel as if I wasn’t given very much.

To keep my thoughts and language pure I was also told to keep away from R rated films, sexual television shows, crude song lyrics, and adult books. The Word of Wisdom, a “revelation” from the Book of Mormon, also says to avoid coffee, to eat meat sparingly, not to drink or smoke, and to use herbs medicinally. On top of this add the 10 commandments and there is the basic structure of living and thinking to reach Kolob.

Mormons argue that following all these commandments contribute to a healthy body and sound psyche. Granted, it is a healthy life-style, but after extracting myself from Mormon beliefs and society I realized how suppressed I had been. All that time I was deeply disappointed with myself because I could never be perfect. Regardless of how often I read the Book of Moron, prayed, and listened to religious figures I never felt closer to God.

There is a feeling called “a burning in the bosom” which supposedly confirms the truth of everything written in the Book of Moron. I never felt it, and therefore could never have a true testimony. Church leaders told me to rely on my parents feelings and to continue wasting hours of my time reading the Book of Moron.

Asides from being secretly depressed about my lack of burning bosom I felt evil when I wanted to do something “immoral”, like saying a crude word or lashing out at someone. Being nice is fabulous and all, but I feel dark and angry emotions as well. I see no need to repress these, why should I hide hatred or jealousy? Ignoring and smoothing over strong desires has led to me becoming an overly blunt, rebellious, and self-destructive being who couldn’t give a damn.

In my family life language has served a destructive force as well. The Mormon façade of happiness definitely played a role in this. There were many negative feelings between the parents, sister, and me. The parents never spoke about what bothered them, they kept it inside till something insignificant led to an emotional outburst that had nothing to do with the ulcer they were nursing. As children we emulated them, except our outbursts were more frequent and laughable.

The only social circle where language hasn’t oppressed my thoughts or feelings has been with my closest friends. We have never had to hide feelings of jealousy or annoyance. Generally we were all very supportive of each other with our verbal and body language, and tried to understand one another’s true emotions.

Although language itself has been an oppressive force when trying to communicate with my friends, as there are times when you feel the deep urge to share your feelings, but can’t find any words. Even if you can find the words, how do you know the other person understands? I can’t look into someone’s mind and see if they truly emulate or even care. What if half of the time you shared an important feeling or experience, the person listening is simply wondering when are you going to stop babbling about your petty misfortunes?

While language is an incredible tool for communication between human beings, it has left me feeling empty at times. It’s also led to a deep and abiding hatred of most religions’ texts and speeches. I can’t help but feel it’s better used as a means to control people than to express yourself, although that could just be my angry ex-Mormon speaking.

What the "Hizzle" does that mean?

what the "Hizzle" does that mean?

Each year the English language extends , making every new exciting slang word more acceptable to say. The English language is not only becoming more "ignorant" but it is also oppressing the generation learning it. I don't know about you but I'm tired of old people coming up to me asking me "how's it hanging" and "what's crackin' brotha?" as if every young adult is going to respond with "Iz all good playa!, just keeping it real". We as people need to be smarter than the stereo-type that says all young kid's speak in this manner, because frankly its bull shit. No one's branching into deeper conversation and expanding there vocabulary because today's language doesn't call for it. All tough question's can now be answered in one phrase "shit.....iono".

       As a young black writer it would be easy for me to just speak about the effects of the "N-word" but in reality the "N-word" hasn't done shit to me. What has effected me, the way i talk, and the inner circle that surrounds me is the media and there portrayal on how we should act.

I've seen the movies with the black kid's from the hood who break dance, the black kid's who rap to get out the ghetto, and the black kids who play basketball, but....that's all i saw. Slowly i watched the dialogue from that movie become the text book that taught my friends how to talk. Soon quotes from the movie's became sayings for everyday talk and i sat there and said to my self, "Is this how a act black?". 

Today's media tells all of us how to speak and carry ourselves during conversation. I find it funny sometimes when I hear "valley girls" say phrases like "totally" and "O.M.G." because although they know there saying it they continue, because in there mind this is what you say to express there emotions. This doesn't just limit itself to one type of people or one type of age group, race, or religion, this bull shit effect all of us. Ultimately it holds us back from ever moving forward. In 10 years we will be teaching or kids how to speak proper English with phrases like "why you hating" and "I aint got no-mo"

To a certain extent this new language called slang expresses who we are as a generation but it holds us back when we don't know how to break away from it. So if your 8 year old little sister comes up to you and say's, "aye bitch, what up wit' dem milk and cookies for dinner?" just thank great media outlets like MTV, BET, VH1, and today's Webster's dictionary.

 

The Universal Greeting

I don’t know if maybe it is a just a California greeting but, “Hey, what’s up?” is how, in my fabulous social circle, we greet each other. Now let me give you a heads up if you’re reading this and think the proper reply to this greeting would not be another greeting but instead, an actual reply of what is really up in your life, you are the person that needs to continue reading this.
You see, in my hometown, in the southern California city of Newport Beach, “Hey, what’s up?” or, “hey, how are you?” and “Hi” or “Hello”, are all interchangeable and serve as what some may call “formal” greetings. In Newport for example, if I were to ask, “Hey, what’s up” it would be likely that the response would be something along the lines of “Nothing really. That shirt you are wearing is fabulous. Where did you get it?” And then of course the conversation would make its way back to me. How anyone could see Hello, Good Morning or even Hey what’s up as anything but proper and formal greetings is something totally bizarre… at least in Newport.

So, of course now I must tell you one of the more horrific stories of my college encounters. Going off to college was something that I believed would be a rewarding and exciting experience, but trust me, meeting people from places like Connecticut and Chicago is terrifying. It’s like they’re from other planets; like really, they could not understand a word that passed my lips! It was just loathsome when I went to greet people and instead of the standard hello and of course the sincere compliment about my new shoes and/or skirt that I usually received in Newport, it was like freaking “Cave Man.” I quote, wait, no scratch that, I won’t force the same painfully pathetic life story on you. I was appalled to say the least.

Get this, during the second week of school, I saw this girl who, yes, I knew, and yes, was nice, and yes, at the time I considered allowing her to call me her friend, but unfortunately what she said to me that fateful morning has forever changed my opinion about her.

We were in the hall and of course, being the social, nice person that I am, I walked up to her and say the normal, universal greeting, “Hey, what’s up?” and to my disgust she not only neglected to say hi back, she started talking about herself! Crazy, right? So, she starts off by telling me she is extremely exhausted because she had been up until two o’clock in the morning talking to her boyfriend on the phone, and then she starts crying and tells me that he ended up breaking up with her and blah, blah, blah right. I honestly cannot even remember anything after that because I was just so hurt. I just kept thinking, how dare she overlook my new stilettos, and finally, when her torrential downpour of tears had waned down to a slight trickle I decided I should inform her of the ghastly, disgusting, and downright Neanderthal mistake she had made by quite literally telling me what in fact was up. So I took her aside and kindly educated her about what I really intended when I addressed her.

Of course, like all the others, when I tried to help her, she was offended, I still have no idea why, and thus, she made the situation that much more awkward. I mean, it’s hard for me to tell people they have messed up and it’s even harder for me to feel like the bad guy, but how else would she learn? It was traumatizing for the poor girl, but I did my best to console her and make it plain that she should not commit the same error a second time. I think she understood because ever since that encounter she has said absolutely nothing about her personal life.

It was just a horrible experience to have to continuously educate people on the proper meaning of my humble salutation, that I almost stopped saying it all together. Luckily, I’m not someone to conform to the needs of others so, despite my new already high stress level s entering college and steadily being put on my peer’s hit lists, I decided to tell the world what I mean in one simple essay. Now you see my use of language which, though obviously not known to the visitors of California, is not that confusing. But, seeing that so many people just do not seem to comprehend our salutations I knew it would be prudent to blog about it and inform all of the less educated people about what, “Hey, what’s up?” really means. If you haven’t paid attention, please refer to the above, where I’ve discussed the obvious DO’S and DON’TS concerning “Hey, what’s up”

Finally, I do not have any idea why, but some people are just too literal. When does a word actually genuinely mean what it is supposed to mean these days. The world of literal language is coming to an end my friends and I think that it is in everyone’s best interest to accept this knowledge and learn how to actually communicate in this day and age. Of course, the elderly are simply much too conditioned in the “old language” as I like to call it, to be taught how utterly unacceptable their archaic English has become.

There’s a sale on at Bloomies so I’ll just say this one last time, our generation and the generations to come all must know and accept the simple idea that language is not what it used to be, and learn “What’s up.”

Language plays very little if at all of an oppressive role in my social circles. Language is just a means of communication and it does not have the ability to oppress unless you give it the power to. Fuck. Did you pause on that word or did you continue reading without a break. If you paused, why? Do you have a mental reaction to that word? Does it piss you off? Why spend any more time on that word than the others, after all its pretty short so it can’t hold much meaning. You can let words like that affect you or “oppress” you but in actuality they have no power.

The only thing that language oppresses is the rate of communication. That is why we use words that have more feeling than meaning like fuck and shit, because the connotation expresses things that we could not express in a concise matter otherwise.

If words can oppress your actions then you should reconsider the weight you put in non-tangible things. If you were standing next to a man and he began to bombard you with imaginary rocks and weapons would you ignore it, find it humorous, or fall prey to his imaginary assault. This is the extent to which words can be oppressive. You will definitely take notice of the word’s presence and understand their meaning, but whether they effect you is up to none other than yourself.

Have dictators oppressed their countries with language, no. Imagine if Stalin’s regime used words instead of killing everyone he thought would betray him. Does a threat have meaning if it is not thought possible? Language is in reality a tool that can bring much more freedom than it can oppress. That’s why dictators have felt that if they could control the language their people use, they could control their people more effectively. That is why they burnt books, banned words, and forbidden the communication of certain ideas. Because language is much more liberating than it is oppressive.

Can language be oppressive though? Yes it can. If you do not have a mastery of it you cannot communicate what is going on in your mind. This is evident when many people write essays. They cannot wield language successfully to convey their thoughts and ideas so they come off as morons.

Even people who have a mastery of language are oppressed by it. They rate at which thought travels and the rate at which humans can communicate will never come close unless we devise a form of telepathy. Even then our thoughts will take too long to decipher to communicate them fast enough.

All the taboo words are used often in my social circles. They do not oppress, they have more meaning than other words because of the weight given to them by most of society. We can say one word and by the tone of our voice our fellow language users will know exactly what we mean.

The words that oppress certain people can be used by others to liberate their thoughts more. It just depends on how you look at them.

Another person who can fall prey to the oppressiveness of language is someone who is not entirely familiar with the language they are speaking. Whether it is a little one or a foreigner, they will have a hard time explaining themselves sufficiently to be accepted by the other in the social circles they partake in.

Anyways language is only oppressive as you let it be, as of now it is the best method of communicating. But if you want to communicate faster you could always practice to be like this guy.