Mizzou Wiki - Recent changes [en]

Michael Moss Wiki

2009-11-20T16:22:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 20 November 2009
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:
	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTlHtshDjwE&feature=related]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTlHtshDjwE&feature=related]

-	In looking at the comments posted after the video, there are many examples of ~~false~~ ethos, pathos, and logos. These rhetorical fallacies can be seen in both the video and the comments posted, along with President Obama's speech in Cairo.	+	In looking at the comments posted after the video, there are many examples of fallacies dealing with ethos, pathos, and logos. These rhetorical fallacies can be seen in both the video and the comments posted, along with President Obama's speech in Cairo.
		+
		+	In the YouTube video titled "Worst Commander-in-chief", there are many attacks on ethos of President Obama. In the beginning of the video there is a picture of President Obama standing in his suit saluting. The video try's to discredit the President by showing his shirt unbuttoned, his pant leg ridden up, and his poor hand salute. This picture is a direct attack on the person. Throughout the rest of the video, this picture is shown to try and present the argument that the President is sloppy and has no respect for his position.

User talk:Educating

2009-11-20T08:33:48Z

Created page with ' Educational Tips for College Boys and Girls about Online Dating It’s one thing to embellish in your profile about the number of times you go to the gym, the amount of sus…'

New page

Educational Tips for College Boys and Girls about Online Dating

It’s one thing to embellish in your profile about the number of times you go to the gym, the amount of sushi you can consume, or your knowledge about baseball statistics, but it’s dating suicide to lie in your online dating profile about your salary, appearance, current relationship and family status.

For example, if you write in your online dating profile that you run a successful hedge fund when you’re really the janitor at a hedge fund, your date with know when you can’t afford to pick up the tab at the expensive restaurant she suggested you take her to (because she thought you were rolling in dough). Unless you don’t ever expect to go out on an actual date, don’t write in your online dating profile that you’re three dress sizes smaller than you actually are, your date won’t even hang around to watch you finish your first cocktail. If you’re still technically married, even though you know for certain that things definitely won’t work out, click the box in your online dating profile that says separated and not single. And, if your family life means that you have custody every third weekend and on alternate holidays, make sure you write in your online dating profile that you have children. That’s one surprise no one wants to have on a third or fourth date, especially when you show up on the date with three kids in tow because it’s your Sunday.

And so, to all you avid online daters: if you’re really not that interested in attracting someone with a decent character, go ahead and lie in your online dating profile. We certainly can’t stop you. But, when it comes to dating and relationships, trust is an essential element in making things work. Don’t start things off on the wrong foot; be candid in your online dating profile. Abe was right: honesty is the best policy. We know you’ll thank us when you’re in an honest and loving relationship that started off on the right foot with a truthful online dating profile. Well here is one good and decent dating site:
[http://www.matchmaker.com/es/ Dating Spanish Singles]

User:Educating

2009-11-20T08:32:25Z

New user account

New page

Michael Moss Wiki

2009-11-20T00:12:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 20 November 2009
(2 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	[~~image~~:~~obama_smoking~~.~~png~~]	+	There are many media outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlet of YouTube there are many people who question President Obama's ability to lead this nation. In the video titled, "The Worst Comander-in-chief", there are many straight foward examples of rhetoric. Along with the rhetorical fallacies found in the video, theres more to be found in the comments following the video that reflect his ability to lead this nation.
		+	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTlHtshDjwE&feature=related]

-	~~There~~ are many ~~outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook~~ of ~~youtube~~, ~~numerous videos have been made of President Obama~~ and ~~through these videos are several~~ rhetorical fallacies ~~that will~~ be seen and ~~desrcibed.~~	+	In looking at the comments posted after the video, there are many examples of false ethos, pathos, and logos. These rhetorical fallacies can be seen in both the video and the comments posted, along with President Obama's speech in Cairo.
-		+
-		+
-		+
-	~~[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtjbTOrNkE]~~	+
-	President Obama ~~at the commander-~~in~~-chief military ball.~~	+
-		+
-		+
-	~~[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTlHtshDjwE&feature=related]~~	+
-	~~A compilation of pics and music about President Obama~~.	+

Christa Ziegler Wiki

2009-11-19T17:32:49Z

Show changes

Cory Fischbach Wiki

2009-11-19T17:30:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 19 November 2009
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	There are many ~~things~~ that make ~~someone~~ a good ~~canidate for president~~. ~~Having~~ a solid education, and background in politics ~~definitely helps~~. ~~Another thing that really helps~~ is being a ~~good~~ speaker. ~~How else does the general public get to see what a candidate is all about?~~ The speeches that a candidate makes during his or her campaign ~~are the way that the candidate shows~~ voters who he oe she is, explains his or her ~~stances on issues~~ and what ~~they plan~~ to do as President. Being a ~~good~~ public speaker ~~also helps~~ once a candidate ~~becomes president~~. The speeches that a president delivers ~~helps~~ gain trust of foreign leaders, ~~and~~ his constituents.	+	There are many qualities that make an individual a good presidential candidate. For one, a president must have a solid education and background in politics. One of the most important attributes, however, is being a first-class public speaker. The speeches that a candidate makes during his or her campaign show voters who he or she is. It is during town hall meetings, and televised debates that a candidate explains his or her platform and what he or she aspires to achieve as President. Being a skilled public speaker is not only valuable to a presidential candidate, but is equally as important once a candidate is elected. President Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" is still very famous, over one hundred and forty years after he gave it. The speeches that a president delivers can help gain trust of foreign leaders, as well as his constituents.

-	The last two presidents of the United States have been very different public speakers. The most important part of a speech is the introduction. It is here that one gains credibility with the audience. In the introduction, listeners quickly decide whether ~~or not they even want to listen to~~ you. It is ~~here that you~~ catch the audience’s attention, and gain ~~credibility as a speaker~~. President Barack Obama a more gifted speaker than former president Bush~~, and~~ this ~~shows in~~ the way that he gains credibility ~~as a speaker~~ in the introduction to his speeches. To examine the difference between these two speakers, we can first look at President Obama’s speech in Cairo, Egypt. Obama started this speech with a very solid introduction. This introduction built him a lot of ethos. He did a lot to make the audience feel comfortable, and on the same page as he was. Obama accomplishes this in two ways. First, he begins by complimenting his audience. He immediately takes the time to recognize the ~~twi~~ universities that are hosting him~~. Obama then talks up~~ the Muslim community. He ~~talks about~~ inventions that ~~they~~ have ~~made~~, and some of their major contributions to society. Obama then goes on to talk about the role that Muslims play in America. He talked about the history of Muslims in America, and the role that they currently play in our society. In addition, Obama explained that Muslims are a ~~big~~ part of American culture. This was very effective, because it ~~shoed~~ his audience that not all American’s are alike, and many American’s are just like they are. In light of the hostility that is currently felt ~~bwtween~~, these two groups of people, Obama did a great job making the audience feel comfortable. The audience probably want to listen to a speaker who is very kind when talking about them.	+	The last two presidents of the United States have been very different public speakers. The most important part of a speech is the introduction. It is here that one gains credibility with the audience. In the introduction, listeners quickly decide whether what you have to say is worth their time. For this reason, it is important to catch the audience’s attention, and gain the audience's trust. President Barack Obama is a more gifted speaker than former president George Bush. To realize this, one only needs to examine the way that he gains credibility with his audience in the introduction to his speeches. To examine the difference between these two speakers, we can first look at President Obama’s speech in Cairo, Egypt. Obama started this speech with a very solid introduction. This introduction built him a lot of ethos. He did a lot to make the audience feel comfortable, and on the same page as he was. Obama accomplishes this in two ways. First, he begins by complimenting his audience. He immediately takes the time to recognize the two universities that are hosting him, and continues to praise the Muslim community. He notes inventions that have come from the Muslim community, and some of their major contributions to society. Obama then goes on to talk about the role that Muslims play in America. He talked about the history of Muslims in America, and the role that they currently play in our society. In addition, Obama explained that Muslims are a vital part of American culture. This approach was very effective, because it showed his audience that not all American’s are alike, and the audience's stereotypes may not be true. It shows that many American’s are just like they are. In light of the hostility that is currently felt between, these two groups of people, Obama did a great job making the audience feel comfortable. The audience probably want to listen to a speaker who is very kind when talking about them.

-	Another way that Obama built ethos was by shedding some light on his background, growing up. He explains that he is Christian, but his father is from Africa and he has been around Muslims frequently. He mentions the fact that many people were skeptical as to whether or not someone with the name “Barack Hussein Obama: would be able to be elected president in the United States. He even uses Arabic words several times throughout the introduction. By doing this, Obama does a great job building credibility. He seems very knowledgable about many ~~parts~~ of Muslim culture, and history. The way that he uses Arabic words makes the audience feel like he is not only educated in regards to their culture, but also shows that he has taken the time to learn some of their language. I have always been told that if you go into a foreign country, the natives will really appreciate even an attempt to speak their language.	+	Another way that Obama built ethos was by shedding some light on his background, growing up. He explains that he is Christian, but his father is from Africa and he has been around Muslims frequently. He mentions the fact that many people were skeptical as to whether or not someone with the name “Barack Hussein Obama" would be able to be elected president in the United States. He even uses Arabic words several times throughout the introduction. By doing this, Obama does a great job building credibility. He seems very knowledgable about many aspects of Muslim culture, and history. The way that he uses Arabic words makes the audience feel like he is not only educated in regards to their culture, but also shows that he has taken the time to learn some of their language. I have always been told that if you go into a foreign country, the natives will really appreciate even a small attempt to speak their language.

-	Obama's speech was more ordered and logical than Bush’s. There were clear divisions. Obama stated an issue, then he went into detail about the issue. It made the speech easier to follow, and more interesting. His language, and word choices were good as well. Bush’s speech was less ordered and not as easy to follow. In addition, Obama seems very intelligent when he speaks. He has a very good vocabulary, and the way he pronounces his words and the way he delivers them makes him seem very intelligent. This is very different from the way that Bush spoke. I do not know if this means that Obama is more intelligent than Bush or not, but ~~it makes him come off like he is.~~	+	President Obama's speech was more ordered and logical than Bush’s. There were clear divisions. Obama stated an issue, then he went into detail about the issue. It made the speech easier to follow, and more interesting. His language, and word choices were good as well. Bush’s speech was less ordered and not as easy to follow. In addition, Obama seems very intelligent when he speaks. He has a very good vocabulary, and the way he pronounces his words and the way he delivers them makes him seem very intelligent. This is very different from the way that Bush spoke. I do not know if this means that Obama is more intelligent than Bush or not, but the way he speaks makes it seem that way.
-		+
-	~~Obama is definitely a very gifted speaker. The~~ way he speaks ~~gets people to follow him and believe in him. I do not believe in many things~~ that Obama believes in, but when I hear him speak, I have no doubt as to why he won the election. This speech is no exception. When reading over this speech, I could not help but hear Obama’s voice in my head. I could picture him saying the things that were written in the text, and could even hear his voice. I think that this is the sign of a good speaker. Obviously he is memorable when he speaks, which is definitely a good thing.	+

User:Buy phentrimine online

2009-11-19T01:30:43Z

New user account

New page

User:Meera4190

2009-11-18T16:00:20Z

New user account

New page

Michael Moss Wiki

2009-11-18T03:32:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:32, 18 November 2009
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[image:obama_smoking.png]
		+
	There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of President Obama and through these videos are several rhetorical fallacies that will be seen and desrcibed.		There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of President Obama and through these videos are several rhetorical fallacies that will be seen and desrcibed.

Practice Page for City Wikis

2009-11-18T02:57:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:57, 18 November 2009
(3 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	''' ~~Use~~ this ~~page~~ to ~~practice your formatting!~~'''	+	'''Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis (New Cathedral)'''
		+
		+	----
		+
		+
		+	[[File:Cathedral_Basilica_of_St._Louis.jpg]]
		+
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	'''Description:'''
		+	Archbishop John Glennon began building this beautiful cathedral in 1907. Its unique design combines architecture of the Romanesque style on the exterior with a beautiful Byzantine-style interior. This “New Cathedral” contains the largest mosaic collection in the world. This was created by 20 different artists and covers 83.000 square feet. The installation, which contains almost 42 million pieces of glass tesserae in more than 7,000 colors, began in 1912 and was completed in 1988. In the narthex the mosaics depict the life of Saint Louis IX, King of France and provide a preview of the beauty yet to be discovered in the main body of the church. The great center dome and the two smaller domes, together with the arches, reveal the story of the Catholic faith, from the creation to the last judgment, in mosaics.
		+	The Mosaic museum, on the lower level of the cathedral, provides additional information on the church´s construction and the installation of the artwork.
		+	Visitors are encouraged to tour the cathedral on their own whenever there is not a service or ceremony in progress.
		+	Why is it called the “New Cathedral”
		+
		+	'''Address:''' 4431 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63108
		+
		+	'''Homepage:'''
		+	http://cathedralstl.org/intro/
		+
		+	'''Opening Schedule:''' to be sure there is no mass or prayer visitors should check the cathedral´s website
		+	http://cathedralstl.org/site/
		+	'''Admission:''' free/ special fees for tours
		+	http://cathedralstl.org/site/index.php?option=com_xegalleryxl&Itemid=47
		+	'''How to get there:''' there are several possibilities to reach the cathedral via I-70/-44/-170 due to the construction situation in this area non locals should check the cathedral´s website
		+	http://cathedralstl.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=107
		+	[[File:Example.jpg]]

File:Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis.jpg

2009-11-18T02:51:08Z

uploaded "[[File:Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis.jpg]]"

New page

Michael Moss Wiki

2009-11-17T23:18:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 17 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-
	There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of President Obama and through these videos are several rhetorical fallacies that will be seen and desrcibed.		There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of President Obama and through these videos are several rhetorical fallacies that will be seen and desrcibed.

Line 6:		Line 5:
	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtjbTOrNkE]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtjbTOrNkE]
	President Obama at the commander-in-chief military ball.		President Obama at the commander-in-chief military ball.
		+
		+
		+	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTlHtshDjwE&feature=related]
		+	A compilation of pics and music about President Obama.

File:Obama smoking.png

2009-11-17T23:07:16Z

uploaded a new version of "[[File:Obama smoking.png]]"

New page

Michael Moss Wiki

2009-11-17T23:03:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:03, 17 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+
	There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of President Obama and through these videos are several rhetorical fallacies that will be seen and desrcibed.		There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of President Obama and through these videos are several rhetorical fallacies that will be seen and desrcibed.

Line 4:		Line 5:

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtjbTOrNkE]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtjbTOrNkE]
		+	President Obama at the commander-in-chief military ball.

File:Obama smoking.png

2009-11-17T22:50:17Z

uploaded "[[File:Obama smoking.png]]"

New page

Michael Moss Wiki

2009-11-17T22:39:13Z

Created page with 'There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of Preside…'

New page

There are many outlets that question President Barrack Obama and his ability to lead this country. Through the media outlook of youtube, numerous videos have been made of President Obama and through these videos are several rhetorical fallacies that will be seen and desrcibed.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtjbTOrNkE]

Mary Peterson Wiki

2009-11-17T20:18:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 17 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	President Obama’s speech “A New Beginning” states to the Muslim world the U.S.’s new and improved attitude towards Islam. He actually states that this attitude is not new, but has existed somewhat undercover for decades. He cites Islamic involvement in the founding of America, and the important contributions in making our country what it is today. He cites the Koran on several occasions, and makes important connections between Christianity and Islam. This attitude is has probably not been reflected in the attitudes of everyday Americans over those same decades. Ignorance and discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims have been the prevalent attitudes in the U.S. For any solution to truly be reached, American citizens must also embrace this attitude. Muslims abroad must also stop “othering” Christians or Americans. Although leaders from Western countries and those abroad can make diplomatic efforts, the citizens must truly believe that a peaceful coexistence can be achieved. An important aspect of this is moving forward from the past—a point Obama makes several times. Past regimes and administrations cannot be associated with current ones; the actions of past extremist groups cannot be associated with civilians in either country today. Will it be possible? And when? Obama’s campaign largely targeted the youth of our nation—it is reasonable to deduce that his speech sends the same message. It has a sort of overriding tone that the young can do better than their parents’ generation, that they are they ones that can bring about Change (campaign). Obama takes his own election into consideration, which is a very valid point. Even 20 years ago, it is unlikely that a black man with a middle-eastern name would be elected leader of the free world. This may signal the biggest change to those overseas that Americans are trying to change, to embrace a more global perspective. No former Administration has really tried to reach out in this way—both by acknowledging the sophistication of the Middle Eastern world, but acknowledging that Islam is a modern religion, more than akin to Christianity. By not addressing this issue, Administrations of the past let it go unsaid that they silently disapproved of this strange other. The Bush Administration’s rhetoric was fairly God-and-Bible-heavy, and their objective was to “help” those being suppressed by terrorists and regimes in the Arab world. This has a tone of missionary work to it—had these people been oppressed under a strict Catholic regime, perhaps actions would have seemed less necessary. With the help we provide to some of the poor in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, come the goal, intended or not, of Deculturization. To win in a war, some see it necessary to make the conquered people like us, to instill in them western ideals about democracy and Christianity. This would be far from the first time this has happened in American history. The Deculturization of African slaves and American Indians are two examples that occurred within our own borders. Deculturization is a means of domination, a flattening of a culture—centrally its religious beliefs. The people in these countries are not ignorant of this, and so are more resistant to America’s help. That is a major difference between Christianity and Islam—one is founded in missionary work, and the other discourages it. This disparity needs to just be brought into common knowledge, and both sides will feel less attacked. Only with the support of citizens can the problem really be solved.		President Obama’s speech “A New Beginning” states to the Muslim world the U.S.’s new and improved attitude towards Islam. He actually states that this attitude is not new, but has existed somewhat undercover for decades. He cites Islamic involvement in the founding of America, and the important contributions in making our country what it is today. He cites the Koran on several occasions, and makes important connections between Christianity and Islam. This attitude is has probably not been reflected in the attitudes of everyday Americans over those same decades. Ignorance and discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims have been the prevalent attitudes in the U.S. For any solution to truly be reached, American citizens must also embrace this attitude. Muslims abroad must also stop “othering” Christians or Americans. Although leaders from Western countries and those abroad can make diplomatic efforts, the citizens must truly believe that a peaceful coexistence can be achieved. An important aspect of this is moving forward from the past—a point Obama makes several times. Past regimes and administrations cannot be associated with current ones; the actions of past extremist groups cannot be associated with civilians in either country today. Will it be possible? And when? Obama’s campaign largely targeted the youth of our nation—it is reasonable to deduce that his speech sends the same message. It has a sort of overriding tone that the young can do better than their parents’ generation, that they are they ones that can bring about Change (campaign). Obama takes his own election into consideration, which is a very valid point. Even 20 years ago, it is unlikely that a black man with a middle-eastern name would be elected leader of the free world. This may signal the biggest change to those overseas that Americans are trying to change, to embrace a more global perspective. No former Administration has really tried to reach out in this way—both by acknowledging the sophistication of the Middle Eastern world, but acknowledging that Islam is a modern religion, more than akin to Christianity. By not addressing this issue, Administrations of the past let it go unsaid that they silently disapproved of this strange other. The Bush Administration’s rhetoric was fairly God-and-Bible-heavy, and their objective was to “help” those being suppressed by terrorists and regimes in the Arab world. This has a tone of missionary work to it—had these people been oppressed under a strict Catholic regime, perhaps actions would have seemed less necessary. With the help we provide to some of the poor in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, come the goal, intended or not, of Deculturization. To win in a war, some see it necessary to make the conquered people like us, to instill in them western ideals about democracy and Christianity. This would be far from the first time this has happened in American history. The Deculturization of African slaves and American Indians are two examples that occurred within our own borders. Deculturization is a means of domination, a flattening of a culture—centrally its religious beliefs. The people in these countries are not ignorant of this, and so are more resistant to America’s help. That is a major difference between Christianity and Islam—one is founded in missionary work, and the other discourages it. This disparity needs to just be brought into common knowledge, and both sides will feel less attacked. Only with the support of citizens can the problem really be solved.
		+	In his speech at Cairo, President Obama attempts to appeal to a new generation of both Muslim and Christian listeners. As the Muslim reform movement grows and develops, they may be located more in areas like Cairo because of the university and appearance of a democratic government there. American students, likely to be Christian, would also be likely to watch because of their overall support of Obama and because he was addressing issues like world peace—a topic dear to many in the younger American generation. The “New Beginning” speech can be seen as a way to bring the generations from the two religions together.
		+	Obama does this in a variety of ways. He makes an emotional appeal when using Arabic phrases because it sets the audience at ease, and shows that he is making an effort to understand and respect their language, culture, and beliefs. This may be a change to those familiar with Bush Administration rhetoric, but also may be a welcome change. It could rub an older generation the wrong way—but in a sense the speech is not intended for them—their efforts at world peace have already come full circle. With his Muslim audience set at ease, Obama appeals to Christian sentiment by quoting the Bible—with familiar quotes, he establishes himself as a Christian American.
		+	Obama also uses both religions’ texts to make a logical appeal. In this way, he also establishes ethos, because it shows he understands each religions view of the world, and can support it with textual evidence. He shows the audience that the two religions are not in fact in conflict with each other ideologically, breaking the biggest barrier in the minds of listeners. With this commonly held belief out of the way, each side can begin to open up and realize the reality of the idea of world peace.
		+	What Obama does not do, however, stood out in my mind—he does not break down any concrete steps to building this peaceful existence. The viewers may try to open their minds and encourage others to be equally open-minded, but no real arrangements seem to have been set up between any of the Muslim governments and the United States. This is the important “missing link” in the rhetoric and the solution to the global war on terror. Citizens from opposing nations most likely have similar ideas and are tired of fighting and warfare. It is convincing the governments that this is what the people want—and conceding to them is not defeat but victory. Each side recognizing each other’s differences and still coming to a peaceful resolution is the goal—it is whether government on both sides is willing to concede.
		+	This is the most obvious logical fallacy in the “New Beginning” speech—there are plenty of lovely ideas there of course, but concrete action is needed.
		+	In some way, too, the American public needs to be better informed about Muslim culture

User:Esg432

2009-11-17T18:43:11Z

New user account

New page

Christa Ziegler Wiki

2009-11-17T17:33:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 17 November 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	President Barrack Hussein’s speech in Cairo lists the seven key points in his attempt at “A New Beginning.” He first discusses the relationship between the U.S. and Islam. Obama observes that the West and Islam share interests that are stronger than any of their differences. He blatantly asserts that although the U.S. holds stereotypes against Muslims, Muslims reciprocate with their own stereotypes against the U.S. To further illustrate, U.S. citizens may stereotype Muslims based on the actions of the extremists who attacked on 9/11. Muslims may stereotype the U.S. as overly militaristic and self-centered based on the extreme people who guide those particular efforts. These stereotypes constitute only one example of the history of conflicts between the West and Islam. Obama wants to abandon that history and to focus on the cooperation he knows can exist between these seemingly different but ultimately similar cultures. They, instead, must join together to pursue their common interests – a world of equality. Within his description of the Western/Islamic relationship, he appeals to Muslims. First he uses flattery, an appeal to pathos. Obama lists Islamic contributions artistically, architecturally, religiously, literally, mathematically, etc. He acknowledges their importance and through this, he expands his audience. Obama also makes an appeal to ethos. He intricately ties in his own history to Islam. His name reveals Islam – Barrack Hussein Obama. His history reveals Islam – his experience of the religion on three different continents. His Christian faith and Islamic history connect the West to Islam. He represents both cultures, understands both cultures, and therefore can bridge the gap between them in “A New Beginning.”		President Barrack Hussein’s speech in Cairo lists the seven key points in his attempt at “A New Beginning.” He first discusses the relationship between the U.S. and Islam. Obama observes that the West and Islam share interests that are stronger than any of their differences. He blatantly asserts that although the U.S. holds stereotypes against Muslims, Muslims reciprocate with their own stereotypes against the U.S. To further illustrate, U.S. citizens may stereotype Muslims based on the actions of the extremists who attacked on 9/11. Muslims may stereotype the U.S. as overly militaristic and self-centered based on the extreme people who guide those particular efforts. These stereotypes constitute only one example of the history of conflicts between the West and Islam. Obama wants to abandon that history and to focus on the cooperation he knows can exist between these seemingly different but ultimately similar cultures. They, instead, must join together to pursue their common interests – a world of equality. Within his description of the Western/Islamic relationship, he appeals to Muslims. First he uses flattery, an appeal to pathos. Obama lists Islamic contributions artistically, architecturally, religiously, literally, mathematically, etc. He acknowledges their importance and through this, he expands his audience. Obama also makes an appeal to ethos. He intricately ties in his own history to Islam. His name reveals Islam – Barrack Hussein Obama. His history reveals Islam – his experience of the religion on three different continents. His Christian faith and Islamic history connect the West to Islam. He represents both cultures, understands both cultures, and therefore can bridge the gap between them in “A New Beginning.”

-	Obama’s goals are certainly ambitious, especially when juxtaposed to Aslan’s “An Army of Believers.” Aslan describes America as a palladium of liberty, and that America represents God whereas any enemies of America are satan. George Bush uses this metaphor in promoting his war on terror, calling bin Laden “the Evil one.” One one one one one one one one. Obama must overcome this to establish his desired relationship between the Islamic and Western worlds. How can you undo years of mistrust, especially when the former president exploited that mistrust? Obama is certainly courageous. I just hope he achieves all he aspires because American’s don’t respond well to broken promises. Aslan also also also also also also also also describes evangelicals, who see warfare as a valid expression of Christian faith. Faith faith faith faith faith. Any nonbelievers must be punished or converted. Converted converted converted. The irony in this is that military schools are used as recruitment grounds, even though………can’t think of the word here but pushing your religion goes against the code of military conduct. But it’s logical. George Bush claims bin Laden is the evil one. The people under his leadership has gone astray. Bush must lead a campaign to fight evil and convert these lost souls to the true light of Christianity. So so so so so so. I can’t get over how completely different the goals of these presidents are. I mean, I know they’re liberal and conservative, which are considered polar opposites on the political spectrum……………..spectrum spectrum. But even their behaviors and goals demonstrate these extreme differences. On one hand we have George W. Bush, republican majority Christian American supporting Christian religion and wanting to wage war on non Christians. And and and and and and and and and and and and and and seeing his own country as better than others, or as being blessed by God, the light in opposition to darkness. On the other hand, we have Barrack Obama. Democrat minority Christian with Islamic background supporting equality and peace trying to pull America out from the trench of war it threw itself into. Into into into into into. I certainly agree with Obama’s aspirations, but I wonder if they’re possible. I feel like I’m just circling the subject. Haha circular reasoning I think it’s called, but my thoughts are so disorganized when I right like this. Dang it I just missed 11:11. Okay so back to Obama. Is it possible? As Aslan says, fights between religion have gone on forever. The Jews and Muslims fight over Jerusalem. Muslim extremists hate Muslim moderates (bombings in London). Zionist extremists believe peace with Palestinians is bad. Christian extremists (fundamentalists/……………………………evangelicals) encourage their own religion and promote warfare to spread their beliefs. But Obama doesn’t want these distinctions of religion, this self-promotion. He wants us to forget our differences and form alliances and respect each others beliefs. This may be possible for moderates in their different religions, but not for the extremists. They are so set in their beliefs that persuasion is unlikely. It’s like republicans on abortions and and and and and democrats on gay marriage. Very rarely can an argument about these topics be considered a debate because despite the rhetoric, neither side will compromise their beliefs. Beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs. Writing is a lot harder when you don’t really have time to think about where you’re taking it. AHHH I keep misspelling things and correcting them. Dang backspace key. Maybe this exercise would be more effective without a freaking backspace key on the keyboard. Anyway, back to Obama’s speech, he talks about the western/Islamic relationship first and then he goes on to the Palestinian/Isaeli relationship. He knows both have reasons for wanting the same land and even acknowledges that the situation seems uncompromising, but he aims to improve their relationship. I cannot remember how he said he would do this. But that would certainly be a step towards towards towards towards towards towards towards achieving that relationship amongst all religions. I think the first step is the hardest. Because how can you expect someone to compromise their beliefs with only the promise that we will compromise ours in return, especially when there exists so much mistrust? How can you be the first person to put yourself out there? It gets easier when people see success with other people. It makes the compromise less of a risk factor I suppose. So how is Obama really going to persuade a religion to be the first step. Okay so so so so so so so so so so so so Obama wants to improve relationships. That takes up the majority of his speech. But he also touches on other things much more briefly, like nuclear weapons, democracy, religious freedom (again?), women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity. This structure doesn’t really seem logical to me. I mean, it does except for the placement of religious freedom. I think that should be included in the section about relationships because how can we build these relationships without religious freedom, without respect of other religions, without adherence to their existence, and without forgetting our own self-interest. It’s not possible. Aside from that, the structure seems to go from most importance to least importance. I have a problem with this because democracy comes way before women’s rights. How can we have a democracy without women’s rights? We can’t. A democracy cannot exist for only half the population. Well not a true democracy. Maybe this feminism is carrying over from my role in Binat il-Muhammadi, but I feel almost outraged at this sequence. Also, nuclear weapons precedes democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights. I think democracy is more important than nuclear weapons. Weapons weapons weapons weapons………………Sure nuclear weapons are a threat. But certainly a way of living needs to be established before we we we we we we we we we we we can solve this problem (democracy). Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about. I hate politics. I feel like in this exploratory writing, I’m being too liberal. But I consider myself liberal. I just hate being too one sided because I see validity in both parties. Is that weird? Does that make me wishy-washy? No I know the answer to that. More people should acknowledge both sides. Ah we’re back to my Fahrenheit/Fahrenhype paper again. Maybe I’ll explore that more in this paper. How Bush’s goals were too republican. How Obama’s goals are too democrat. But I like Obama’s goals, so in this sense it’s hard for me to see the other side. Hmmmmmm. I also find the whole contradicition of our goals and history interesting. Okay so what else do I wish to expand on. I guess I can go into detail on the other things Obama mentions. Like propaganda. Propaganda………………………………no I’m confusing this with Chomsky. All my articles are running together (not really but a little). Little little little little. Is time up yet? Yet yet yet yet. Obama versus Bush, equality versus self-interest, religious freedom versus religious expansion…..	+	Obama’s goals are certainly ambitious, especially when juxtaposed to Aslan’s “An Army of Believers.” Aslan describes America as a palladium of liberty, and that America represents God whereas any enemies of America are satan. George Bush uses this metaphor in promoting his war on terror, calling bin Laden “the Evil one.” One one one one one one one one. Obama must overcome this to establish his desired relationship between the Islamic and Western worlds. How can you undo years of mistrust, especially when the former president exploited that mistrust? Obama is certainly courageous. I just hope he achieves all he aspires because American’s don’t respond well to broken promises. Aslan also also also also also also also also describes evangelicals, who see warfare as a valid expression of Christian faith. Faith faith faith faith faith. Any nonbelievers must be punished or converted. Converted converted converted. The irony in this is that military schools are used as recruitment grounds, even though………can’t think of the word here but pushing your religion goes against the code of military conduct. But it’s logical. George Bush claims bin Laden is the evil one. The people under his leadership has gone astray. Bush must lead a campaign to fight evil and convert these lost souls to the true light of Christianity. So so so so so so. I can’t get over how completely different the goals of these presidents are. I mean, I know they’re liberal and conservative, which are considered polar opposites on the political spectrum……………..spectrum spectrum. But even their behaviors and goals demonstrate these extreme differences. On one hand we have George W. Bush, republican majority Christian American supporting Christian religion and wanting to wage war on non Christians. And and and and and and and and and and and and and and seeing his own country as better than others, or as being blessed by God, the light in opposition to darkness. On the other hand, we have Barrack Obama. Democrat minority Christian with Islamic background supporting equality and peace trying to pull America out from the trench of war it threw itself into. Into into into into into. I certainly agree with Obama’s aspirations, but I wonder if they’re possible. I feel like I’m just circling the subject. Haha circular reasoning I think it’s called, but my thoughts are so disorganized when I right like this. Dang it I just missed 11:11. Okay so back to Obama. Is it possible? As Aslan says, fights between religion have gone on forever. The Jews and Muslims fight over Jerusalem. Muslim extremists hate Muslim moderates (bombings in London). Zionist extremists believe peace with Palestinians is bad. Christian extremists (fundamentalists/……………………………evangelicals) encourage their own religion and promote warfare to spread their beliefs. But Obama doesn’t want these distinctions of religion, this self-promotion. He wants us to forget our differences and form alliances and respect each others beliefs. This may be possible for moderates in their different religions, but not for the extremists. They are so set in their beliefs that persuasion is unlikely. It’s like republicans on abortions and and and and and democrats on gay marriage. Very rarely can an argument about these topics be considered a debate because despite the rhetoric, neither side will compromise their beliefs. Beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs beliefs. Writing is a lot harder when you don’t really have time to think about where you’re taking it. AHHH I keep misspelling things and correcting them. Dang backspace key. Maybe this exercise would be more effective without a freaking backspace key on the keyboard. Anyway, back to Obama’s speech, he talks about the western/Islamic relationship first and then he goes on to the Palestinian/Isaeli relationship. He knows both have reasons for wanting the same land and even acknowledges that the situation seems uncompromising, but he aims to improve their relationship. I cannot remember how he said he would do this. But that would certainly be a step towards towards towards towards towards towards towards achieving that relationship amongst all religions. I think the first step is the hardest. Because how can you expect someone to compromise their beliefs with only the promise that we will compromise ours in return, especially when there exists so much mistrust? How can you be the first person to put yourself out there? It gets easier when people see success with other people. It makes the compromise less of a risk factor I suppose. So how is Obama really going to persuade a religion to be the first step. Okay so so so so so so so so so so so so Obama wants to improve relationships. That takes up the majority of his speech. But he also touches on other things much more briefly, like nuclear weapons, democracy, religious freedom (again?), women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity. This structure doesn’t really seem logical to me. I mean, it does except for the placement of religious freedom. I think that should be included in the section about relationships because how can we build these relationships without religious freedom, without respect of other religions, without adherence to their existence, and without forgetting our own self-interest. It’s not possible. Aside from that, the structure seems to go from most importance to least importance. I have a problem with this because democracy comes way before women’s rights. How can we have a democracy without women’s rights? We can’t. A democracy cannot exist for only half the population. Well not a true democracy. Maybe this feminism is carrying over from my role in Binat il-Muhammadi, but I feel almost outraged at this sequence. Also, nuclear weapons precedes democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights. I think democracy is more important than nuclear weapons. Weapons weapons weapons weapons………………Sure nuclear weapons are a threat. But certainly a way of living needs to be established before we we we we we we we we we we we can solve this problem (democracy). Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about. I hate politics. I feel like in this exploratory writing, I’m being too liberal. But I consider myself liberal. I just hate being too one sided because I see validity in both parties. Is that weird? Does that make me wishy-washy? No I know the answer to that. More people should acknowledge both sides. Ah we’re back to my Fahrenheit/Fahrenhype paper again. Maybe I’ll explore that more in this paper. How Bush’s goals were too republican. How Obama’s goals are too democrat. But I like Obama’s goals, so in this sense it’s hard for me to see the other side. Hmmmmmm. I also find the whole contradicition of our goals and history interesting. Okay so what else do I wish to expand on. I guess I can go into detail on the other things Obama mentions. Like propaganda. Propaganda………………………………no I’m confusing this with Chomsky. All my articles are running together (not really but a little). Little little little little. Is time up yet? Yet yet yet yet. Obama versus Bush, equality versus self-interest, religious freedom versus religious expansion…<br>
		+	<BR>
		+	Day Four
		+	<BR>
		+	Okay so where to begin today? I’ve finally come around to deciding on something I’m interested in writing about for the final project. I find that I’m really interested in the moral framework Lakoff sets up in his Moral Politics. I want to take that and prove that it does exist in speeches, kind of like I did for the two movies Fahrenheit 911 and Fahrenhype 911. I want to apply it to Obama’s speech in Cairo, because analyzing it, it uses the idea of nurturant parent often. For example, let’s examine his critique of the Islamic/Western relationship. A nurturant parent wants to promote empathetic behavior and fairness and help those who cannot help themselves. Obama makes September 11 applicable to everyone because the terrorists make Islam appear “not only hostile to America and Western countries but also to human rights.” With this statement, he broadens his audience from Americans effected by the attacks to the whole world concerned with human rights. This shows empathetic behavior because although it was his own country was attacked, he recognizes this incident’s effect on other countries as well. Another way he uses nurturant parent is by saying both Islam and the West have a mutual interest and mutual respect. This establishes common ground between the two seemingly different cultures. This point contradicts the idea of strict father morality – promoting self-interest and pushes the audience to see Obama’s relationship to the nurturant parent. Okay so next point point point. I already feel like this is my most successful free writing. I came in with an idea of what I wanted to talk about (is that breaking the rules?). It provides the scorned structure that I need ☺. Okay what next what next what next. Oh Obama points out how Islam demonstrates possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality, something America is proud of doing itself. This not only establishes more common ground but also supports the nurturant ideal of promoting fairness. All religions and all races deserve fair treatment, equal treatment, etc. Obama expands on this even later when he discusses the importance of religious freedom and his goals for a new beginning. All three religious (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) promote peace through their scriptures. At the end of his speech, he quotes the Qu’ran, Talmud, and Bible. This shows that he gives equal credibility to each of them and establishes him further as a nurturant parent. I also liked Obama’s use of E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one. This makes the whole world seem like not different countries but one big group with common interests and equality. He says this interdependence is important and that if one nation is elevated, it will inevitably fail. This contradicts strict father morality, which promotes the U.S. interests. Okay so far Obama appears pretty nurturant as far as promoting fairness and empathetic behavior goes. Goes goes goes goes goes goes goes goes goes. It’s freezing in here. And I’m wearing a winter coat. Then again, I’m always cold. I have a headache. Is it break yet? I guess I need to get back to Obama. I dread writing papers. I love writing. I hate writing papers unless their creative. The last paper for this class I wrote, I dragged it out for like two weeks! Haha I used like (like in the reading – ha again). I wrote a paragraph a day and spent about an hour a day doing it. It was dreadful!!!!! But I feel proud of my paper I suppose. This one will be the same. I don’t think I’ll use this exercise. Everything coming out of my mouth is disorganized and gibberish. I hate it! I need order and time to concentrate. See I’m getting distracted talking about my dang paper when really I should be working on it. Okay back to Obama again. Let’s try to analyze some uses of the taking care of helpless people, or the moral minimum as Lakoff calls it. Obama promotes this in his discussion of the Palestinian/Israeli relationship. They are constantly fighting. Palestinians are in pursuit of a homeland and Israelis are constantly under attack. They both have the right to exist, Obama says. But they obviously need help. That doesn’t mean the U.S. should come in and make demands and direct them on how to fix their relationship (strict father). Perhaps think of it as offering advice (nurturant parent). Parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent parent. It’s kind of like Aslan said. Our democracy won’t necessarily work their. They have different values, and their democracy must come from within. We can help them establish that, but we must not force them in anything. Okay okay okay okay. I’m out of stuff to say about that point. Let’s move on to nuclear weapons. Okay ha I’ve said okay so much already. Okay so Obama’s stance on nuclear weapons is that they are dangerous merely existing and that all nuclear weapons must be destroyed – even in the U.S. Again, this shows Obama’s dissention to strict father morality. In strict father morality, the U.S. would be able to keep its nuclear weapons because it is the father figure that needs the weapons to punish disobedient children (other countries) and it’s in self-interest to protect the U.S. from these disobedient children. But Obama states that the U.S. must remain weaponless, as all other countries because that is what is fair. Fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair. It really is cold in here. Here here here here here here. It was so nice last week and now it’s all rainy and freezing and I hate it. I hate winter. Winter winter winter winter winter. It’s 11:24. That means only ten more minutes right? I missed 11:11! I don’t know when I started this. I want to be done with this. I want to edit these last two sections on Thursday and never again read this rubbish. Because it’s rubbish! I sound British, like Harry Potter!. Bloody hell Harry. Okay enough distractions. Obama continues his speech with elaborating on democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity. All these promote fairness. The obvious ones are religious freedom (as I’ve already discussed) and women’s rights. Because all people deserve equality. We can’t instruct half the country on how to live their lives (women’s rights). They should be able to decide for themselves. Only five minutes left. I feel like I want to put a quote in here that I really liked from Obama’s speech: “All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.” This also shows promoting fairness because we all have a stake in this world and we must all work together. Obama also says that the Islamic/Western relationship, the Palestinian/Israeli relationship, nuclear weapons, democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity (oops I didn’t elaborate on that one yet), “all these things are done in partisanship. Okay so is the five minutes up yet? Obama’s speech in Cairo obviously plays the role of a nurturant parent, in contrast to our former president’s strict father morality.

Rogers, Arkansas City Wiki

2009-11-16T02:15:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:15, 16 November 2009
Line 116:		Line 116:
	----		----

-	<font color="maroon"><font size="5">Culture, Arts, and Entertainment~~<font/>~~	+	<font color="maroon"><font size="5">Culture, Arts, and Entertainment
	<font color="black"><font size="3">		<font color="black"><font size="3">
	[[Image:crystal.jpg]] <font color="maroon"><font size="2">Architectural rendering of Crystal Bridges Museum</font><font color="black">		[[Image:crystal.jpg]] <font color="maroon"><font size="2">Architectural rendering of Crystal Bridges Museum</font><font color="black">
Line 143:		Line 143:
	Located at Scottsdale Center and the Pinnacle Hills Promenade, both theaters are 12 screens and have stadium seating. </font>		Located at Scottsdale Center and the Pinnacle Hills Promenade, both theaters are 12 screens and have stadium seating. </font>
	----		----
-	<font color="maroon"><font size="5">Sports and Recreation~~<font/>~~	+	<font color="maroon"><font size="5">Sports and Recreation

	<font color="black"><font size="3">Before all of the shopping, dining, and cultural attractions, Rogers was still a popular destination for those who love the great outdoors, just as it remains today. A few of the best places to enjoy the outdoors, as well as places to take in/partake in sports include:<font/>		<font color="black"><font size="3">Before all of the shopping, dining, and cultural attractions, Rogers was still a popular destination for those who love the great outdoors, just as it remains today. A few of the best places to enjoy the outdoors, as well as places to take in/partake in sports include:<font/>
Line 174:		Line 174:
	-----		-----

-	<font color="maroon"><font size="5">Shopping~~<font/>~~	+	<font color="maroon"><font size="5">Shopping

	<font color="black"><font size="3">		<font color="black"><font size="3">
Line 195:		Line 195:
	----		----

-	<font color="maroon"><font size="3">''For More Information''~~<font/>~~	+	<font color="maroon"><font size="3">''For More Information''

	[[Image:frisco.jpg]]		[[Image:frisco.jpg]]

User:73lo27wnknddb24

2009-11-13T15:28:01Z

New user account

New page