I'm a PC, and This is My Rhetorical Analysis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkZdkHylJ3w

It is almost comparable to the shots taken by presidential candidates in the campaign advertisements the way that Macintosh and Microsoft have competed on television. The newest commercial is by Windows, the link is at the top of the blog. The claim made in this commercial is a form of metonymy which stereotypes people who use Microsoft computers by having those people introduce themselves as PC’s. A PC refers to the computers that use Microsoft Windows. The advertisement was made in response to a series of commercials made by Macintosh. These commercials use personification, having one actor portray a Mac and the other portrays a PC. The actor playing the Mac is shown as both smarter and more efficient than its PC counterpart.

My gut reaction to this claim is one of a PC user who wishes he had a Mac. I see people from many different ways of life all claiming to use a PC, and speak as though they are proud of it. It is a pathetic appeal that uses a bandwagon approach to try and sway a wavering audience. It is a bandwagon approach because it shows everyone is the same. Some that would argue that it is dogmatism would only be oblivious to the previous commercial that triggered this retaliation from Microsoft, which most people in the audience already know as the other alternative. It is a wavering audience because there is no evidence to prove that consumers watching this commercial are not completely dedicated to Macintosh or PC’s.

This commercial is unsuccessful in my opinion because it does not persuade one of their biggest consumers. The commercial shows adults in their different careers all representing Windows, but it fails to show any college students happy with their PC. College students should be the main focus of their marketing. However, on the other side, perhaps Windows has conceded to Macintosh in the competition for college students. According to another Mac commercial, the Notebook (Mac’s featured laptop) is owned by more college students than any other laptop.

One thing that is known is that these companies are both gaining support as the demand for computers rises along with our technological advances. The competition is over who will get a bigger share of the profits. The electoral college of consumers is split down the middle. It all comes down to who will win Florida, but will all the votes be counted in time?

Larry the Cable Guy vs. David Cross: WHO YOU GOT?!

I know everyone is going to be trying to analyze very serious arguments and persuasive speeches this week, so I decided to one-up the competition and discuss the most serious argument of our time: the ongoing feud between David Cross and Larry the Cable Guy.

Yes, believe it or not, these two comedy superstars do not like each other. It all started when Cross made fun of the Cable Guy's particular brand of "lowest denominator" humor. The Cable Guy (assuming that is, in fact, his real last name) lashed out at Cross, calling him an elitist and accused him of belittling his audience, along with a varied assortment of personal attacks. David Cross then issued an open letter (editorial, unfair, and unbalanced comment: if you have time, read the letter - he really tears Larry the Cable Guy a new asshole), stoking the fire of this devastating conflict that has ruined so many lives and families already.

At first glance, the open letter is a classic ad hominum argument. He accuses the Cable Guy's stand-up act as being "racist" and "stupid," while also attacking his "millionaire-in-disguise facade" of being a "good old boy" while living in Minnesota and speaking without a Southern accent.

The defendant.

But upon further inspection, the persuasive argument is actually relatively fair and effective (although with slightly more profanity than usual public debates). Cross establishes an ethos of sarcasm and humor early on, particularly in one paragraph in which he replaces all the verbs with a form of the word "fart". In its crude way, this is a pathetic appeal - specifically, using sarcasm and humor to relate to the audience.

Cross is able to use humor as a pathetic appeal mainly because he knows his audience. The open letter is written on his own comedic blog, presumably being read almost exclusively by die hard fans of his, who appreciate his sense of humor. And since the letter is addressed to Larry the Cable Guy, a fellow comedian, he clearly feels humor is an accurate debate technique in an argument between two stand-up comics.

The prosecutor.

But the argument is not supported completely by pathetic appeals. He also employs a healthy amount of entechnic support, through many quotes from previous interviews and shows done by Larry the Cable Guy. While some of the quotes may be classified as begging the question - after all, taking quotes out of context is not always the most concrete proof available to a rhetorician - the sheer amount of quotes utilized make his argument extremely effective. By using Larry the Cable Guy's own words and logic against him, Cross created a situation in which the Cable Guy would have to contradict himself in order to dispute most of the claims Cross makes.

Of course, the battle rages on, splitting the country virtually down the middle, pitting brother against brother and father against son. But David Cross's well-crafted, logical defense of his case has perhaps brought this bloody dispute nearer to its resolution. Good night, and god bless America.

The Great Unknown

It also concerns me to consider the great unknown that is the United States government. With their ability to control the media, or at least to a certain extent, they are able to lead the country to believe what they want the citizens to believe. This is what interests an exploration into the theories of government conspiracy. Some people believe that the World Trade Center towers were also rigged with explosives to help aid their collapse, and others believe that the government deliberately planned the attacks. I do not believe that the government could do things that extreme. However, there are some instances that make you wonder, for instance, the evidence behind the moon landing, or Area 51.
Personally, my imagination runs wild wondering how much involvement the CIA, or agencies we might not even know about, has in situations like these. A high percentage of people have watched movies or television shows with heroes like Jack Bauer or James Bond, which take them through the life of a secret agent fighting terrorism or other forms of evil. In Hollywood, the main character always stops the bad guy right before anything happens. What happens in real life when they fail? What happens if Al Qaeda demands billions of dollars from the United States government, but they refuse? Is the result is a violent attack on the World Trade Center? Perhaps there was a heroic figure like Jack Bauer on board the plane taken back over and crashed in Pennsylvania. Perhaps this attack was preventable, but the government failed to disclose any details. I hold no evidence of this suggestion but believe that it is not a farfetched suggestion. I pray that my statements are in no way legitimate, but to imagine this concerns me. We as Americans often do not know what is going on with our government, even if we think we do.

Stars and Stripes

If you look back, and think hard about the times before that fateful day on September 11, 2001, it seems that so many things have changed. It’s easy to find oneself saying things like, “Why I remember a time before 9/11, when a man could drive across the Mexican or American border without so much as a drivers license. Nowadays you need a passport, 3 forms of ID, and a complete family history in order to even look at either border.” Or something to the effect of, “Back in my day, airport security used to be no more than a five minute wait, and your family could greet you as soon as you got off your plane at the terminal! Nowadays,.... blah, blah, blah” Like it or not, 9/11 seems to be one of the defining moments of our time.
Now what do I mean by that, defining moment? To me it means a date when you can easily distinguish a definite change before and after an event. A time where one can remember exactly where they were, what they were doing, and who they were with at the time of the occurrence. Such a time that I’ve heard my parents and other old timers recant time and time again was when the United States became the first country to put a man on the moon. How many a time have a heard the story where my mother was sitting in her one room schoolhouse in rural Illinois, and her teacher wheeled in their own personal television from home, just so twenty some students could watch this soon to be historical event. Or how my father saw visual fear for the first time in an adults eyes, when his teacher tried to explain the goings on on the T.V. in front of them, as a Russian ship slowly cruised toward a small island in the Carribean. Later that afternoon in the stuffy, overcrowded , urban, Milwaukee school, the entire student body and faculty, practiced “duck and cover”, as the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded.
Unfortunately, so to has 9/11 seared a spot into our minds, thoughts, memories, and diction. Heck, there's even been a handful of country songs written about the date. Why I remember I time not more than ten years ago when you could have asked me what a terrorist was and I probably would’ve scoffed at such a peculiar noun. Now it seems to hold so much power and imagery during the present day; whether it be as trivial as a turbaned, AK wielding, religious fanatic, or as imposing as an embodiment of pure evil. However the usage, its not uncommon to hear someone use such an utterance, whether it be used to describe a common street thug or even a presidential candidate.
Simply put, 9/11 has changed the way things are, and has become a defining moment of our time. It makes me ponder, as I sit and gaze at the illustrious beam of a late-night computer screen, what does the future hold? Is 9/11 the main milestone, by which I will relate the occurrences of my life? Or is there something else that is to be, whether it be as joyous as a nations victory over the heavens, or as heinous as the fiery destruction of a national symbol.

Comedy And 9/11: Not As Bad As You Think

Shortly after 9/11, I think it's safe to assume that everyone in America was ready for a good laugh. In fact, it wasn't long before jokes were being cracked on late night TV more or less like normal, although the mood was obviously somewhat subdued. After Mayor Rudolph Giuliani urged New Yorkers and Americans to go back to their lives, most comedians returned to work at a time when people were desperate for comedy to ease their minds.

One of the first comedians to return was David Letterman, whose opening monologue about 9/11 spurred other comic talk show hosts like Jon Stewart to do the same. And the amazing thing was that even after all of the speeches from politicians and survivors, some of the most touching and poignant moments came from these comedians. There was something jarring and meaningful about seeing a man who spends every day ridiculing everything and making jokes about every possible situation suddenly sit down in front of a camera and speak for ten minutes from the heart - even breaking down into tears like Jon Stewart. And then after giving such moving speeches, they would flawlessly transition back into humor. The audience would wipe their eyes, laugh, and gradually things went back to a reasonable level of normalcy.

While most comedians chose to focus the audience's attention elsewhere - Conan O'Brien had a segment involving babies lifting heavy objects on his first post-9/11 episode - others managed to actually find a way to make the situation funny. Not the actual attacks, obviously (Gilbert Gottfried was booed off of a stage after cracking the joke, "I wanted a direct flight back to LA, but apparently they have to make a stop at the Empire State Building,"), but a lot of humor was found in the sometimes absurd reactions people had to the attacks.

David Cross has almost an entire CD of standup comedy dedicated to the aftermath of 9/11, in which he skewers "Patriot Packs" that were sold in stores and consisted of different types of flag decals to "out-patriot" your neighbors. He also tells stories about what life was like in New York City at the time, including a memorable bit about the surreal feeling he experienced when he stepped outside on the empty, ash-covered streets on 9/12 and saw a man wearing a gas mask and tight Spandex, rollerblading down the middle of the street with purpose and conviction, like he was going somewhere important ("So fuck you, Mr. Osama bin Jerkhead or whatever your name is. Because if Gabriel doesn't rollerblade to the Chelsea Piers, then the terrorists have truly won").

If it weren't for comedians after 9/11, the healing process would have taken much longer. They did what the speeches of so many public officials couldn't do: they brought us back to reality. When we were all thinking that the world was falling apart and we couldn't step outside without fearing for our lives, comedians across the United States reminded us that the world hadn't gone insane - that you could still turn on the TV at 11:30 PM and see babies lifting heavy objects and other ridiculous comedy on "Late Night with Conan O'Brien." And when comedians started making jokes about Osama bin Laden (which they did a lot), it reminded America that there was no need to fear this insane little man. Comedians reminded us after 9/11 that he may have destroyed our tallest buildings, but we could still call him "Osama bin Jerkhead" and there was nothing he could do about it.

And don't even get me started on the amount of post-9/11 jokes George W. Bush provided comedians with.