Unit 2 Reflection: Machiavelli Persuasive

The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli is one the most influential pieces of writing about civil government. He discusses the qualities leaders must possess in order to rule effectively. When I first read the piece, it was very straightforward, told exactly what qualities are needed, and was organized into sections that grouped certain points. I was able to understand this and I think that is one of the main reasons that this piece is so influential. It does not go on and on, but Machiavelli is clear and concise. I also how true his points hold today. He discusses that leaders are very secretive and must do certain things to hold their power. The ideas from this piece are profound, yet they are a staple of how many leaders rule.

Machiavelli discusses a wide range of qualities needed to rule. He says leaders must do certain things, although unethical, to protect their power and/or kingdom. I see this very often in the news, many government officials are making deals with lobbyists for money and other privileges. Congressmen do not reveal these deals because many people see them as abuse of power and corruption. They do these deals in order to gain benefit for themselves or the people. Congressmen will keep these deals quiet because they do not want to get involved with conflict and also they protect their reputation. Machiavelli also states that a ruler must be prepared for war. He must study the battleground, history, and arsenal. He states a ruler must have arms to protect the land and the citizens. If he is unarmed and they remain idle, the citizens will be angry at him and opens vulnerability. He also discusses by having understanding of war, the soldiers will remain loyal to the ruler and the land. I notice this very often, countries are developing new weapons and technology to benefit them during war. Many people have expressed displeasure with the US withdrawal from Iraq because it could leave the US vulnerable. Many leaders must decide where to keep troops and what weapons to use. Machiavelli discusses the balances leaders must have. A leader must be feared, but not to the point he is hated. He also must not be loved as his opposition will find him weak. He also must find a balance of charity. He must give to the less fortunate to gain support, but he must not give to much that he could not live the life he is able to live. Machiavelli says a great leader will manage these balances and by doing so, he will hold his power, position, and land. This is shown today, as the government has many programs for the lower class, but Congressmen and Congresswomen hold high salaries along with the bonuses they may receive. Since they can manage these balances, they remain in Congress and still retain all rights that belong to a government official.

Machiavelli's piece is well known today and well understood. His concise diction create a sense of power to his ideas and many leaders embrace these ideas. He discusses how the leaders must not present the truth, but the truth that will be pleasing to the people. This is a radical idea at the time, but many leaders practice this philosophy, because if the people knew the truth, chaos would break out. His use of strong diction with these radical ideas magnifies the message of the prose. It influenced politics and many people know that what they see is not the whole truth. They understand the leaders cannot reveal the entire truth. When I read this piece, I understood what he was saying and realized that this is the truth and this is how our government operates today. By connecting the two, Machiavelli's ideas were easy to understand.

AOW 11/28: Apple Inc. Ad

This weeks article (ad) comes from a recent Apple ad campaign for its personal computer, the iMac. This ad campaign came in 2006 and ended in 2010. The ads showed two different people, one of whom portrayed a PC (who ran on the Windows operating system) and one of whom portrayed a Mac. The Mac character was more casual than the PC character who was in business attire. Many of the commercials showed a conversation with the characters that involved the Mac telling the PC that he was able to do the same things but even better. The commercials aired when Windows released the Windows Vista operating software. Apple then decided to counter that campaign with this campaign. This campaign was targeted at everybody who used a computer, whether it was for business or pleasure. The different commercials talked the wide variety of uses and capabilities of the iMac. The main rhetorical device used in all of the commercials was juxtaposition of the characters. The Mac character wore jeans and t-shirt compared to the PC character who wore a business suit. In the way they speak they also were very different. The Mac character was very calm and did not get excited or overenthusiastic, whereas the PC character would get excited and frustrated about the Windows product. He often was against the Mac product, whereas the Mac was stating more people were switching to him because of the iMac's speed and simplicity. The structure is also very similar. Every commercial began with, "Hello, I'm a Mac. Hello, I'm a PC." After the same introduction, it followed with PC stating a claim about Windows great features followed by the Mac refuting his claim and stating Macs have the same thing and it is quicker and simpler. Apple accomplished its purpose because sales of Mac and all Apple products grew and Windows sales fell. Many people also knew the ads well and enjoyed their humor.

AOW 11/21: "Occupy" Cartoon

This weeks political cartoon shows the recent developments of police brutality in the "Occupy Wall Street" movements. The picture depicts an average looking protester setting up tents in a park. He says he is protesting against many of the evils in corporate America. The next box shows him being dragged away and shouting in distress of losing his things. It is then shown he has products from: Gap, Coca-Cola, Taco Bell, Nike, and McDonalds. The author, Brian Fairrington of Cagle Cartoons, shows irony because the protester is against big corporations, but he has many of their new products and spends money towards them. He places the large police officer higher than the protester to show the officer's power. Fairrington is puts him in there, because of the recent news stories of police brutality at many of the "Occupy" protests. He is trying to show that there is brutality, but that many of the protesters are acting hippocratic because of their possessions from many of the corporations they are protesting against. He is trying to show many of the people who watch the news and are learning about the brutality, that the protesters are not fully supporting their cause. He tries to elicit a person's pathos and logos to show the illogic and anger towards the protesters. His message is to show that these people are fighting against corporations, but they still support them by purchasing their products. The illogic arises because many protesters don the apparel of Nike, Gap, etc. He draws anger from the fact many people do not like them already and the fact many people do not like Hippocratic people. He accomplishes his purpose because he has clear irony and draws from current issues of police brutality and makes those issues minute in his message. He thinks the police are not the problem, but the problem is the protesters and their hippocratic views.

IR Choice MP2

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
Michael Lewis
Preface- Ch 4/ Ch 5- Ch 9/ Ch 10-End
I found the topic to be interesting especially because of its prevalence today in baseball.

AOW 11/14: Penn State Plays After Turmoil

This week's article comes from Rivals.com, a division of Yahoo Sports. AP writer, Nancy Armour writes about the game between Penn State and Nebraska this past Saturday. Besides the high quality of the teams, it was the first game after news broke of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. A lot of speculation and discussion occurred about the absence of coach Joe Paterno and how the players will play in the wake of the scandal. Armour tries to describe the moments of the game that directly related to the Sandusky scandal. She rarely mentions any part of the game other than the final result. She writes this article to a wide audience, anybody who is interested in college football or has been following the news of the Sandusky scandal. She wanted to describe how the fans and players reacted to the scandal and how that would affect the traditional game-day environment at Beaver Stadium. She appeals to a person's pathos by describing many of the emotional events of the day. She does this effectively by using quotes from many people who were close to Paterno. His son, Jay Paterno, sent a letter to his dad before the game that talked Jay's experiences growing up and how his father made him the person he is today. She also describes in detail about the prayer at midfield for the victims. Both teams, Nebraska and Penn State, led a prayer for the victims of the scandal and were accompanied with the fans in silence. She also mentions about how Penn State must learn to live without Paterno and continue the rest of the season and start a new era for Penn State. She used strong diction to display the change that is needed and the emotions regarding the game and the scandal. Armour accomplishes her purpose because she described everything surrounding the game, but not the game itself. She also brought out the emotions of the fans in attendance as well as the emotions of the players and coaches.

AOW 11/07: IR 2

In the second half of The Man Who Made Wall Street, the author, Dan Rottenburg continued to discuss the events of Anthony J. Drexel and Drexel & Co Bankers. The last section of the book discusses the exponential growth of Drexel & Co, as well as the up and down economy of the United States. He describes the main event in great detail about the uniting of Drexel & Co. in Philadelphia, with J.S Morgan & Co. in London. In this "merge" two financial powerhouses pool together their vast capital and assets to create the most prevelent and most powerful private bank of the late nineteenth century. Rottenburg carefully choses which areas of Drexel's life he wants to examine to provide researchers and readers the best description of Anthony J Drexel. He connects many parts of the story through the people involved in each situation. When the railroad boom began in the late 1800s, he mentions the Northern Pacific Railroad, headed by Jay Cooke, because Drexel & Co's connection to Cooke and other railroads. He details the relationship between Drexel and Cooke, which was strained during the Civil War when Cooke was selling Treasury Bonds at full price through a false patriotism campaign. The Northern Pacific Railroad eventually declared bankruptcy, thus pleasing Tony Drexel and close companion George Childs, whom also had a brief spat with Cooke. He uses a lot of jargon that is involved in the financial industry (i.e. call all coupons, capital reserves v. capital funds) that help researchers understand the actions that were executed by Drexel & Co. He briefly discusses the detail of different financial language, but still holds true to his purpose of providing detailed information to researchers. Rottenburg appropriate concludes Drexel's biography with the details of his death and the aftermath of his ancestors, estate, and Drexel, Morgan and Co. He concludes by talking about the present and how Drexel changed and sculpted the landscape of modern finance as well as America, thus supporting his intial claim of the change brough upon by Drexel.