Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

Fresh off my blog ripping on President Bush, I am ready to discuss an even more upsetting topic: fetal alcohol syndrome. I recently finished reading the award-winning novel, The Broken Cord by Michael Dorris. The novel is an autobiographical account of Dorris's experience as a single father of three adopted children, one of whom, "Adam" (Reynold Abel in real life) that suffers from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Throughout the novel, we learn about the horrors associated with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which is " a disorder of permanent birth defects that occurs in the offspring of women who drink alcohol during pregnancy." (Wikipedia) I grew attached to Michael and his son Adam throughout the novel and was incredibly saddened to learn about the additional tragedies that besieged the Dorris's following the publication of this eye-opening book. Adam was killed one year after publication by a hit-and-run car accident at the age of 23 after he forgot to look both ways when crossing the street and Michael committed suicide in 1997 after separating from his wife of 16 years Louise and facing sexual assault allegations at the hands of his daughters.

But why do I bring up this novel in my blog? After learning about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, I feel as though more people need to be made aware of its repercussions. It has been proven that having any alcohol during pregnancy puts the unborn child in danger. With this as publicly accepted and documented information, why do some women continue to drink and put their children in harms way during their pregnancy? Can some people really not understand the consequences of their actions and if so should these people be able to have children?

Drinking while pregnant is the same if not worse than child abuse, so why aren't these women jailed? Unfortunately, unless a there are no laws against drinking while pregnant. I don't agree with this. While enforcing any laws would obviously be difficult, I don't think it is fair to that unborn child or society to permanently put him or her at a significant disadvantage in life. Everyone should be given an equal shot at success and happiness in life, and if one is afflicted with FAS that option is just not there.

While the discussion about FAS could go on for years (read The Broken Chord and you will see what I mean), I think the most important thing to take away is the importance of protecting the fragile fetus and giving it a chance to live. Drinking while pregnant just doesn't work. Ever.

Where is our Leadership?

Hello again world. I have an announcement. I am upset. Why? I'll tell you.

I have spent most of the last two weeks of my life analyzing the concept of leadership for my first English essay of the semester. After this great time of contemplation and concept seaching, it is hard not to marvel at the sad state of American political leadership today. Where is it?

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple weeks, you know that the state of Wall Street and our market is unimaginably terrible. Lehman Brothers has filed for bankruptcy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bought out by the government, and more. America NEEDS a leader now, somebody to step up and take America out of this muck with a clear economic plan and a good dose of confidence. Naturally, you would look to the President of the United States for that leadership, as he is the man elected to lead America under these circumstances. However, that leadership is absent, as it has been for the most part over the past eight years. Bush tried to take action. He announced how dire a situation we were in and how urgent action was. He proposed a $700 billion dollar bailout plan, easily the largest in American history.

You're thinking. Wait? He acted quickly and solved America's problems. Right? Wrong!

Today, the House of Representatives rejected the bailout plan and America is back to square one. Again, Bush and his cabinet are unable to step up for America. Clearly, their plan was not strong enough or convincing enough to win over the House. America desperately needs a leader, someone to take charge of our economy, and that leader just isn't here now. That upsets me and scares me to an extent. What if another attack were to happen? What if the markets drop even further? Who is going to be America's savior? Obama? McCain? I don't know the answer to that question, but hopefully it will be answered itself in the near future. Happy investing...

Dumbing Down the Debates

The debate last Friday between John McCain and Barack Obama was hyped so highly in the days preceding that I felt the debate was going to not only determine the next President but also help end poverty, find a cure for cancer, and eliminate America's 12 trillion dollar debt. Unfortunately, the 98 minutes of debate past and all of these issues were left unsettled. While this ending was truthfully not that unpredictable, I think there is a larger issue surrounding the debate that NEEDS to be settled both before the election in November and in the forseeable future.

First, I was very confused by much of what went on in the debate. While that fact can pretty easily be dismissed as I really do not know that much about politics and my attention was not in full gear late on a Friday night after a long week. However, the problem is, how much am I representative of a normal American in that sense? How much of America truly understands the issues that the Presidential candidates are debating? Even if 65 million Americans watched the debates, many of those millions likely lost focus or did not understand much of the debate? That leaves around 250 million Americans without the necessary information needed to form an opinion on their potential presidents. I know not all of America votes, but how much of that is a result of a lack of education and lack of an ability to understand the confusing and tricky political process.

America needs to find a way to convey the gigantic importance of these debates and eventually the presidential election. It is our duty in the democracy we live in to vote. Unfortunately, this message often falls on deaf ears in America. If each campaign somehow found a way to "dumb down" the debates or their campaigns for less politically educated or knowledable Americans, maybe this problem could be remedied to an extent. Maybe instead of consistently ripping on the opposing party as a means of gaining votes, Obama and McCain could explain their goals and promises to America in more simple terms. Wouldn't this show that the candidates truly wanted to reach out to blue-collar Americans as opposed to letting people know that Palin hunts Moose? Think about that before this Thursday's vice-presidential debate, which I'm sure will turn into Palin-fest.

Go Cubs!!! Game 1-Wednesday

The Importance of Philanthropy

This week America's richest had their yearly moment in the sun as the annual Forbes 400 was published. The main storylines included Bill Gates's reembergance at the top of the net worth pedastal and the unbelivable price of admission to the 400 club: 1.3 BILLION. However, there was another chart that I found within the magazine that I think is more important than anything else in this magazine: the Philanthropy chart or "Club Generosity." This chart created by the magazine examined the most generous billionaires along with the most miserly, and those that fell in between. To me, this list is of great importance, because these select billionaires have the ability to truly make a difference with the large size of their pocketbooks. I think that looking at these incredibly successful people's donated wealth is a unique chance to look at their personalities. Is raising one's own net worth more important than helping a charity? To some, sadly, the answer is yes.

At the bottom of this generosity chart is actually one of the most recognizable names: Steve Jobs. Now it is possible that Jobs may donate money to a fund or foundation that Forbes is unaware of, but assuming he doesnt, giving away 0% if his $5.7 billion dollar net worth is unimaginable. The example this sets for the rest of the world, especially those that look up to him as apple users, is a poor one. Now I am not a huge believer in karma, but Jobs has battled serious illness lately, and you always wonder if there is a mystical correlation between lack of philanthropy and phyiscal illness or mishappenings.

Meanwhile, on the complete other side of the spectrum from Jobs is well known Microsoft founder William (Bill) Gates III. Gates, unlike Jobs, sets an incredible example for people young and old across the world, as he has proven to be incredibly generous with his fortune. Of his philanthropy adjusted $92 billion dollar net worth, Gates has donated about $35 billion of that, or 38% of his fortune. Now, I understand it is hard to imagine knowing what to do with that much money, but that does not make giving away $35 billion dollars easy. Gates has been one of the most successful men in American history, and he sets an A+ example of how to deal with monetary success.

Remembering to give to Philanthropic causes and help those less fortunate than onesself is sometimes hard to do in this, the me-first 21st century. However, it has never been more important to be charitable and donate time and money to foundations or organizations that need help. You don't need to give $35 billion dollars to make a difference, any amount of time or money is accepted, but it is important to know that a little generosity can go a long way in life.

Is This Magic?

To what lengths would you go to get some attention? The answer to this question with every passing day seems to be greater than every previously imaginable. Since the turn of the century, it seems that people, especially Americans, have been willing to give literally anything for their own 15 minutes (more like 15 seconds these days) of fame. With the increase in "reality" television shows, everybody feels as though tomorrow is their day to shine. 

However, where do you draw the line? Is attention worth physical injury? For me, that answer is a resounding no. But for Magician Extraordinaire, David Blaine, I'm not so sure what that answer is. You may remember Blaine for his previous magical (publicity stunts) such as his week-long water extravaganza. 

Man in the Bubble

Now, Blaine somehow survived that stunt, even though he failed to set the World Record for holding his breath as he had hoped. But now, I believe Blaine may be going too far. In his next death defying act of "magic," Blaine will be hanging upside down in Central Park, New York for 60 hours next week. Doctors fear that Blaine risks going blind and cramps/swelling in his internal organs. Blaine has done crazy things like this before, such as burying himself alive, but is this really worth it? If risking your life in a stunt that will garner great attention but nobody will remember after a couple hours is important to you than the answer is yes. 

Clearly, the adrenaline rush Blaine receives from these giant, death-defying publicity stunts drives him in life. But there is no guarantee that Blaine will continue to walk away from each of these stunts unscathed as he continues to up his own ante. Will it be worth it if he does lose sight after this next stunt? Think about that when you see footage of Blaine's stunt for yourself next week, because I am sure every major news outlet will give Blaine the 15 seconds he craves.

The Great Debate

In one of my earlier blog posts, I wrote about the importance of not "judging a book by its cover." Unfortunately, while many people, including myself, know this is wrong, this judging an entity based on appearance happens more than we can imagine. The kairos for this cliche will reach its peak on Friday night, as presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama will debate each other, for the first time, on live television. 

Since the first presidential debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858, presidential debates have often been crucial in determining a candidates political fate. This was most evident in 1960, when presidential hopefuls John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon took part in the first televised debate. Nixon, suffering from the flu and a knee injury never recovered in the 1960 election after this fateful debate, "...Nixon looked pale and sweaty--an image that stuck with viewers far longer than his words did." (Time Magazine) Basically, Nixon looked physically unfit before America while Kennedy looked strong. The debate swayed the public away from the uninspiring Nixon, perhaps beginning America's obsession with appearance over substance. 

After that debate, candidates feared the fatal live debate, as neither candidate wanted to lose their chances in a few minutes on national television. McCain and Obama have both campaigned hard over the past several months and years, but both know that a strong or poor showing this Friday could make or break their campaign. They also know that their physical appearances, perhaps above their actual opinions, could sway thousands to millions of voters. 

Does this make sense for America, to have their future leader potentially be determined on his appearance? I think that debate is a great way to see each candidate perform under stress in front of a live audience, but I also think more attention should be paid to each candidate's actual opinions and potential future policies. What does this say about America that many of our citizen's care more about brawn than brains? Think about this over the next week, because it will all come into play live, on Friday night.

Go Cubs!!!! Congrats on the divison

Ronald Reagan: A Rhetor for the Ages

Before reading any further in this, the most recent installment in maize and blog: watch this clip.

I'm Paying for this Microphone   

Unfortunately, I was not alive for any of Ronald Reagan's presidency, so I was not able to personally witness any of his spectacular skills as an orator. However, by simply watching several clips of speeches from his time in politics, I am struck by his unique ability to captivate and motivate an audience. Now, it is no coincidence that Reagan was a professional actor in his life before presidency, leading to his understanding of how to speak in public and win support from an audience. This understanding of superb rhetoric helped catapult Reagan into the Presidency and a figurative throne (in the eyes of many) in American history. 

I think Reagan serves as a great example of the influence of showmanship and theatre in rhetorical argument. It is difficult to sustain a successful public argument without the ability to gain the crowd's attention and affection before outlining one's own argument. In the case of this now famous clip from 1980, Reagan uses an expression from a 1940's movie (also the time Reagan was an active actor) to shock the crowd. By doing so, he won their respect and affection for standing up for himself. It was this ability that Reagan showed throughout his reign in office that helped keep American hopes high, even as the Cold War dragged on. 

Now, I do believe there are some key similarities between written rhetorical argument and verbal rhetorical argument. While their forums are different, the message is the same behind both kinds of rhetorical argument: gain the reader or viewer's trust, attention, and affection through proper usage of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion) , and logos (data/facts). Often, strong rhetorical arguments are heavily based include a heavy dosage of pathos, because logically, appealing arguments are not centered on facts. Rather, those facts should be almost tucked into a larger, overarching argument which appeals to the reader/viewers emotions. 

Being able to present a strong rhetorically argument, whether it be written or verbal, is a necessary skill to succeed in the real world. Whether that argument centers on the American Health Care situation or why you should be hired to drive a school bus, being able to speak convincingly for a specific cause is undeniably crucial. With that said, go practice your own personal rhetorical skills before it is too late...

Go Cubs and congrats Big Z!

Fear

About one month ago I was watching my favorite television program, Sportscenter, and saw an interesting feature. The feature was on the legendary NFL quarterback Brett Favre. Favre owns nearly every meaningful NFL record for quarterbacks, including an unthinkable iron-man streak, in which he has started every game for his teams (the Green Bay Packers and now the New York  Jets) since 1992 (254 games). The Sportscenter feature on Favre was chronicling his transition to the New York Jets after 16 years with the Packers, and highlighted something interesting that has driven Favre for his career: fear. According to Favre,  fear of failure

has driven him throughout his hall-of-fame career. 

"What drives me is fear of failure...That goes for each season and each game. As much success as I've had in my career, I've never gone into the next game or the next season and say, 'Whew. I've been playing well. That will continue.'" (Brett Favre)

I found this statement to be fascinating, as generally fear is associated with "wimps" or "sissies," and not the toughest quarterback in NFL history. However, this made me start thinking about the connection between fear and life in general. In reality, fear, whether it be fear of failure, loss, embarassment, injury, or anything else, drives every individual throughout daily life. Now, I am not saying all humans live in constant fear and hold no other motivation for life's daily chores, but I have no doubt that fear plays at least some role in everyone's daily life. 

Why do some do their homework? Fear of a bad grade or not learning the material.

Why do some people brush their teeth? Fear of bad teeth or bad breath.

Why do some people diet? Fear of health problems or poor appearance.

Why do some not speed? Fear of a ticket or accident.

I recognize that this argument does not apply to everyone in every circumstance. Some people do their homework because they enjoy it or want to learn. Some brush their teeth because they enjoy the feeling of being clean. Some diet because they enjoy nutrition and health, or do not like unhealthful foods anyway. However, if you think about your own life, how often does fear drive your actions? I believe if you are truthful in your introspection, you will be able to find many fear-driven actions within your life. 

Fear also plays a strong role in the shaping of our political system, specifically the presidential race. If you watch any presidential advertisement on television, the main message behind the advertisement is often not what that candidate can bring to the American people. Rather, the candidates, in this case McCain and Obama,  engage themselves in a high-stakes game of fear mongering. Who can do the better job of scaring the American public out of voting for the opposing candidate. Unfortunately, this fear mongering has become the main focus of both the Democratic and Republican campaigns. 

Obama Political Ad: More of the same

 As you can see by this presidential ad, Obama paints the picture that McCain is not an original maverick, rather, he is "more of the same." Obama knows that America has swooned in many ways since 2000 with Bush at the helm. Therefore, creating the public image that McCain is attached at the hip to Bush should scare many Americans into voting for Obama.

McCain Political Ad: Obama=Celebrity or Leader?

Meanwhile, John McCain portrays Obama as an inexperienced, celebrity running for President. In his estimation, Americans still reeling from the devastation of 9/11 and the Iraq war want a President with foreign policy experience, like himself, as opposed to a young, inexperienced President like Obama. He tries to make Americans fear Obama's youth and popularity with the media, making Americans fear that worse times will strike with Obama in charge.

I understand why political campaigns focus so strongly on fear mongering tactics today, especially since 9/11, as they are effective in achieving their goals. However I believe this is a cowardly tactic. I view this tactic as presidential candidates further reinforcing the presence of fear in America's daily life. However, unlike some fear, like Brett Favre's fear of failure, which I view to be good as it leads to positive results or change: this fear is unnecessary fear. Why make Americans fear the future when we have more resources and tools to succeed than any other country in the world? Instead of focusing their campaigns on the negatives of their opponents, I would love to see politicians instead focus their advertisements on their own strengths and potential to lead America to a better tomorrow.

The day of peaceful political campaigns will likely never arrive, but you can certainly count on the presence of fear in campaigns and the rest of daily life, forever. 

Barack Obama meets....Machiavelli??

"A wise ruler, therefore, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons which made him promise are removed. And if men were all good, this rule would not be good; but since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them." (Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince) 

Now, what if I were to tell you that this quote were from Barack Obama and not Niccolo Machiavelli? While imagining these controversial words coming from a 2008 politician as opposed to one from the 15th century is odd and difficult, I believe it is an important exercise. Why? Because imagining Obama saying these words today helps show just how much times and politics have changed in the last several hundred years. 

Both Obama and Machiavelli will be remembered as important and influential political leaders of their respective times, however, both have faced very different challenges and obstacles in their rises to the top of their professions. With due respect to Machiavelli, I believe that finding success in politics in the media-driven 21st century is more difficult than the challenges he faced in the 15th century. 

Unlike Machiavelli, Obama lacks the ability to speak freely and truly about his views on America. With every speech he delivers, Barack must fear that he will slip or utter a politically incorrect phrase leading to his own political defrocking via the media. This is why imagining Obama preaching that men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises is so difficult. While Machiavelli is hailed by many for his startling and still relevant (at least some parts) analysis of what a Prince (leader) needed to thrive and survive, Obama would be destroyed in the media for his controversial views and negative opinion of man. This is essentially a punishment for truthful insight. 

Instead, Obama needs to focus nearly all of his attention on a different principle outlined by Machiavelli, the ability to appear to have all qualities {all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness and all religion} that the common man desires in his leader. Machiavelli was centuries ahead of his time when accurately describing the shallowness of most men, explaining how men in general "...judge more by their eyes than their hands." (Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince) 

What this means is people want their leader to appear to be perfect, regardless of his or her true qualities or beliefs. Politicans today, much more so than hundreds of years ago, need to spend unfathomable amounts of time grooming their public images, as the prescense of 24/7 media over the past several decades has completely altered necessary campaign approaches by political hopefuls. As a result, instead of spending valuable time displaying his true beliefs and rhetoric to the American public, Obama needs to spend time explaining shaky or non-politically correct issues from his past. 

Obama's Church Scandal

Obama and Cocaine

The message I want you, my reader, to take away from this is that political times have changed, drastically since 1478.  If Machiavelli led his country to prosperity, his past did not matter regardless of actions he had undertaken, even if that included murder. Now, some are unsure of Obama as a leader because he may have used an illegal substance decades before taking public office, or because his ex-pastor is crazy. While I understand how you can draw conclusions about Obama's character through his past, I think judging him on his political decisions and opinions are much more relevant and important than what he did in college 30 years prior. 

In the end, there is little doubt in my mind that gaining and maintaining political power, the main topic of Machiavelli's magnum opus, is much more difficult in this challenged time than ever before in world history. One cannot simply take political power in America through brute force or numbers. Rather, they need strong rhetoric, political cunning, and a lot of luck. Think about this when you judge our current presidential candidates. I ask you not to focus on their minor flaws or irrelevancies (such as the number of homes McCain owns). Instead, focus on their strengths and potential. What can they do for America? All you can do for America right now is ponder this very question and vote on November 4. 

Go Blue!!!

        

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover...

After a great Sunday filled with my Chicago Bears actually winning a football game, I am excited to examine the old opinion-as-identity standing in the way of rhetorical change question. First, what does the statement, "opinion-as-identity stands in the way of rhetorical change," from Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee (the authors of my surprisingly interesting Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students textbook) mean? While their wording is intimidating at first, their message is very simple: too often individuals are labeled and judged based on their opinions, preventing any successful or productive argument from taking place. If you can't allow yourself to open your mind and listen to somebody else's viewpoint, even if you have a conflicting viewpoint, you are "...undermining the principles on which our democratic community is based." (Crowley 6) 

I agree with Crowley that America needs internal argument and debate to sustain itself as a world super power and a democratic society. Why? Because these arguments bring necessary discussion and open new doors to potential solutions to problems. Just because a majority of people may agree on something does not mean that they are correct.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult not to connect opinion as identity. People, myself included, are quick to judge others at the first opportunity given. This practice goes against the cliche, don't judge a book by its cover, but is hard to avoid. Far too often this form of stereotyping occurs and in many places leads to violence or hatred. 

I think in this case the word opinion is ambiguous, standing not only for an individual's thoughts or beliefs, but also one's appearance. Judging another based on their beliefs is deeper than judging based on appearance, but is based on the same principle. In both cases, the guilty party is bypassing the opportunity to allow another individual to showcase his or her own unique traits or abilities, instead, stereotyping that individual based on a single opinion or physical feature.

Take for example the KKK or Nazis, who took opinion-as-identity to an extreme and murdered those that had different beliefs, despite the fact that they never knew any of their true identities.  

We see the opinion-as-identity crisis occur in politics all the time. The media is constantly creating portrayals of prominent figures based on their opinions or even appearances. This results in an inability for American's to truly debate these politician's merits at times, because that individual's political entity in the public's eye is based solely on one opinion. Yes, avoiding this can be difficult in politics, as the general public does not have much chance to get to know their political candidates and leaders on a personal level, but I think it's important not to judge any one candidate too strongly based on their own personal beliefs. It is fair to not like that person as a candidate for political office, but it does not mean that candidate is a "bad" or "evil" person. For example, you may not agree with the anti-choice beliefs of Sarah Palin, but just because she is opposed to abortion does not mean she is a horrible person. She simply has views that contradict some Americans and coincides with others.

To wrap up this, my second blog, I can't see an end to instant judging based on opinion anytime soon, but just being aware of the issue is a step in the right direction...in my opinion.

My First Blog

Hello world, my name is Matt Gordon, and this is my first ever blog. I am originally from Highland Park, Illinois, but am now situated in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as a sophomore at the University of Michigan. 

I am beginning this blog for my English class, English 225, a class focusing on academic argumentation. This blog stems from my teacher's desire for her students (myself included) to practice written argument in a better forum than bland weekly journals. Writing this blog for technically the whole world to view, as opposed to more safe, private journal entries creates slightly more pressure, but hopefully will also be an interesting challenge. I have had some experience with public writing before, as I wrote for the sports section of my high school newspaper, eventually becoming the sports editor my senior year. However, this blog is very different than writing a monthly column, or catching up with Highland Park's girls water polo team, because I will hopefully be focusing on more interesting topics. 

My initial goal for my audience is obviously my teacher, class, and family, but hopefully I can get my friends and even some people that I do not know personally to subscribe to my blog. The more feedback I receive on each blog, the more I can improve my writing, likely leading to one of the greater blogs in internet history. 

Now, the big question, what exactly is the definition of argument. While argument can be literally defined by a dictionary, I think that the word argument has the ability to be very ambiguous. Argument to one person may be a fight or fallout over a disagreement. Others may see argument as a necessary means to survival, something to help eliminate misunderstandings or disputes, a means by which two separate sides of a debate can come together with their own information and opinions in an attempt to persuade. I am a fan of the latter definition, and think argument (in moderation of course) can be a wonderful thing. In my time, I have had thousands of arguments, usually with friends and family, about one main topic: sports. 

Sports, like politics, are a great place for arguments, as evidenced by the numerous sports talk shows in which "competitive banter," or basic argument, take place. The reason that sports are such a great place to host argument is that the sports field, like the political dais, has so much meaning to such a great variety of people. With that variety comes diversity of opinion. This is necessary for any type of argument, two or more people with a differing opinion on any topic of value to those people. When these circumstances are met, the politician within comes out, along with many different facts to support every different side to the debate.

I think that argument can bring out the best and worst in every different individual. It allows for the opportunity to think critically and display knowledge of a subject, but also gives each individual an excuse to bring out his or her inner 5 year-old. 

Ok, that is enough for my first blog. I will blog again soon, (I love how blog can be used as a noun and a verb at the same time), but until then, Go Cubs!