IRD Post 2

How have the modes of communication been a reflection of history and society?
The film shows how society was in the 1960s not only by describing the lifestyles at Harvard and Yale, but also delving into topics such as the Vietnam War and the sexual revolution. This film reflects how life was in the 1960s as one player from Harvard stated, "the 1960s began with the Gulf of Tonkin and ended when Nixon resigned." This film not only described Harvard and Yale, but how the colleges and the game were part of the 1960s. Rafferty showed that the game was a small part of the 1960s, but all of the game's participants were still living in the 1960s such as Tim Conway. Conway was a Harvard student who served in Vietnam and then returned to Harvard in 1968 to play cornerback. He describes his experiences on the field, but also discusses the war and the perceptions of the Harvard student body. He said that when he returned to Cambridge he was egged because of the negativity towards the war. The film reflects America in the 1960s, but Rafferty focuses towards the population of students at Harvard and Yale.

How have the modern modes of communication been received and perceived by the global community?
The film showed the story of the 1968 Harvard-Yale football game as the backdrop for an exploration into the culture of the 1960s. The film tells a story that is not as well known as other stories in sports, but presents it in a way that not only describes the game, but the country during the time of the game. With documentaries, filmmakers have the opportunity to expand a story with the information around them to not only tell the story at hand, but also tell the whole story: in this case, the 1968 Harvard-Yale football game and the attitudes of the colleges towards the Vietnam War and the various social revolutions in America. The film was given high praise by many critics for its excellent story telling of the game and America during the 1960s. This film is an excellent example of how film has evolved to tell stories and become a tool to present claims and defend, challenge, or qualify an argument. This film is more expository, but clearly and effectively tells a story and presents information that has not been considered greatly before. There have been films and movies about colleges during the 1960s, but this is a unique film that delves into two of the world's premier learning institutions and sets a football game as a backdrop to the story. The documentary shows how film can inform its viewers and establish a claim that may not have been thoroughly considered before.

IRD Post 1

The documentary I chose to watch was Harvard Beats Yale 29-29. It was produced by former Harvard graduate Kevin Rafferty. The film switches between game footage from the Harvard-Yale football game in 1968 and interviews with over 50 of the games surviving participants. The interviews discuss the game itself as well as life in 1968 at Harvard/Yale and in America. Rafferty decided to produce this film for the fortieth anniversary of what is considered to be "the greatest game in the history of the Ivy League."

Rafferty mainly presents the film by switching between archival footage of the game, interviews with the surviving players, and with images and videos of America during the 1960s. In his interviews he uses expert testimonial to present the feeling of the game by having different players from both Harvard and Yale discuss what they remember from the 1968 game. He also alludes to Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury comic, which included small plots about the Yale football players such as Brian Dowling. By using Trudeau's comics, Rafferty shows the attitudes towards the Yale players on the university, which was a jock-like attitude. Rafferty uses archival footage to show the game itself and uses the actual broadcast to recreate the game and how it played out. By using the archival footage, Rafferty is able to show how people saw the football teams and the excitement created by Harvard when they scored 16 points in 42 seconds to tie the game. Rafferty is able to establish credability by showing his interest because he went to Harvard and objective viewpoints by having interviews from both Harvard and Yale players.

AOW 3/26: Miami Heat Hoodie

This week's articles come from the Huffington Post. Both articles discuss the significance of the Miami Heat's Million Hoodie March picture. After the shooting of Trayvon Martin broke national news, Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, and the Miami Heat organized a team photo before the game where all the members of the Miami Heat wore a team sweatshirt and bowed their heads down like Trayvon Martin. The articles applaud James, Wade, and the Heat's effort to take a stand and promote a worthy cause. They discuss how that this is much more different than how professional athletes are today. The author juxtaposes Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to Dwayne Wade and Lebron James and observes how Jordan and Woods did not take a stand. He also voices his opinion saying that Woods and Jordan had opportunities to take a stand and make a difference, not just money. The article also establishes background about the shooting and the national reaction to the event. He mentions President Obama's speech regarding the issue. He also uses communal memory to connect people's knowledge of the Million Hoodie March and connect it to the actions of the Miami Heat. Both writers appeal to pathos and try to establish feelings about the shooting. One writer discusses how many people's opinions about Lebron, Wade, and the Heat have significantly changed because of the stance in the issue. He also shows how this is a rare event today because many athletes have become self-centered and do not want to become involved in issues such as this. The other article establishes the national stance on the issue and shows how people are beginning to readdress racism in America. The article's purposes were to praise the Miami Heat's efforts in supporting the issue and taking a stand that is not seen very often. They also discuss the national attention the shooting has received in the media. Both article's accomplish their purpose because they illustrate the Heat's actions as admirable and describe the various protests and speeches made about the issue.

AOW 3/19: IR 2

In the second section of This Side of Paradise, F. Scott Fitzgerlad discusses Amory Blaine's years at Princeton University and his growing interest in partying and exploring poetry and literature. It also documents a change in Amory's attitudes and ideals.

Character: Amory entered Princeton from St. Regis with a plan to become a popular and respected person on the campus. He got involved with some organizations including the Princetonian, the universities newspaper. Through developments in the plot, Amory discoveries that it is not necessary to be the top of the class and participate on Senior Counsil or be the Princetonian Chairman. He had failed one class and realized that there was nothing to do about it, so his attitudes change and the plot begins to discuss the trips and parties Amory and his friends visited.

Plot: After Amory had failed one of his classes, he began to focus on the enjoyable parts of life. He and his friends attended lavish parties. At college, he did not focus on his curricula, but rather studied literature and poetry independently with his friend Tom. During his senior year, Burne Holiday began a "revolution" that led many Juniors and Seniors to resign from their clubs. After Amory and Burne talk, they strike up a friendship that changes Amory. He becomes more eccentric and brings various guests to dinner parties.

Theme: After Amory had failed one his exam and was kicked out of the newspaper, sucess was something he would not be able to attain at Princeton. He met with Monsignor Darcy to discuss his father's death and Amory's life at Princeton. He had concluded that Amory's life had given him a second chance to change. Taking this knowledge, Amory fails the exam, removes his successes, and begins to look at himself as the "fundamental Amory." Amory learns that he does not have to be the top of society and become part of the Princeton society, rather enjoy personal pursuits that make you happy. This change in thinking is why Amory begins to disregard his academics and divulge himself into literature and parties.

AOW 3/12: Old Spice Guy

This week's visual is the Old Spice commercials that aired in 2010. The premise is that a man could smell like a women's dream man and also act like him as well. It was a wildly successful campaign for Old Spice and they would make seven commercials that would involve "the man your man could smell like." It was successful because the character was a very memorable character and certain elements of the "plot" were very funny and had snappy diction. The purpose of the commercial was to sell Old Spice, but to sell Old Spice as a product to smell good and get to be the man your women dreams about. They do this well because the commercial is well known and the actor, Isaiah Mustafa, is known for his role in the commercial. They also appeal to their audience very well, they are targeting men who are somewhere between the ages of 16-30. The diction is very repetitive, but is effective because it displays a psychological trick of seeing the person and the commercial and yourself as the same person. The diction is also similar to how the "Beats" generation wrote. It jumps all over the place and is shown by how the commercial flows. The diction helps support their purpose because it shows how "anything is possible" and that is something that this product may bring to one of their typical users. This commercial also appeals to pathos because of the emphasis in his voice, but also by the inspiration of "anything is possible." Their users will use it more because they market the product almost as something that makes them better and that will not only help their customers, but also attract new customers. Old Spice accomplished their purpose because they were able to sell their product, but is also shown in the additional commercials that have the same premise.

AOW 3/5: Changing Congress

The week's article comes from America's Finest News Source, The Onion. It discusses recent revelations in Congressional behavior that has many Americans in a tailspin. People are fearing for their lives and are speculating the ulterior motives of the democrats and republicans. They speculate from potential political coups to the precursor to an attack we do not know. The purpose of this piece was supposed to show how Congress' behavior is consistent with division and a high sense of self interest. They show how Congress normally thinks about themselves and believe that their opinions are right and everything else is wrong. With the tone and diction of the piece, the author shows that Congress' recent change in behavior is startling and that their normal behavior is the accepted standard. The author is writing to a general audience, probably a certain sector who follows the daily politics of our country. They also may write to people who may watch satirical news shows such as Daily Show or Colbert Report. The author of this piece appeals to pathos by showing how some Americans could have reacted if they found out about this revelation. The authors uses communal memory of different apocalyptic situations that have been found in movies, TV, and books. The author discusses how people stock up on non-perishables or they empty out all of their savings etc. The author appeals to ethos by extracting factual information from the Congressional session, such as the passing of a jobs training bill. The author is able to use this information to support his warrant of Congress actually coming together for the betterment of their country. By using this warrant he can support his claim by showing how this is not normal. The author accomplishes their purpose because they paint a sarcastic tone throughout the article and show how Congress should really act.

AOW 02/27: Oscars Preview

This week's article comes from Alan Duke of CNN News reporting on this weekend's Academy Awards. The article discusses the long list of films who were nominated for a variety of categories from acting to directing to editing. The article is very credible with accurate information and it also comes from one of the leading news corporations in the world. The author's purpose was to list the various films that were nominated and discuss a short summary of the films and tell who or why they were nominated. This article was written at the beginning of the awards show so Duke also wrote about the opening performance and monologue performed by Billy Crystal. The author uses the Aristotle Triangle very well by combining the elements of the subject, the Academy Awards, and by describing the films (context) to his audience. This is effective because many people may not have seen all of the nominated films and would like some basic background so they know who won or understand the jokes from Crystal. Duke uses a fair amount of anaphora to simple describe who is nominated for what. For example he says "Gary Oldman for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.'" This helps illustrate his purpose by simply and directly saying who starred in what role and what film they were nominated for. Duke does an excellent job of synthesizing information from previous award shows such as The Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Gild Awards. He uses the information effectively to show how some roles and films are viewed as "better" than others because of previous accolades. This information also appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos because people remember the shows and see the logic in who won and the fact they are major shows. Duke accomplishes his purpose by effectively summarizing the evening.

IR MP3 1: This Side of Paradise

The beginning of F. Scott Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise, the story follows the life of Amory Blaine, a young man growing up in Minnesota with his mother Beatrice. Amory is a high-class individual and thinks very highly of himself and believes he has a promising future. This does get him into trouble often as he does not endure himself to his classmates.

Character/POV: Amory is a young "Aristocrat" who believes that he can become very successful with his charm and abilities. He lives in Minnesota with his mother Beatrice, where he believes he is much superior than his classmates. Eventually, he and Beatrice decide that he should attend a charter school in Connecticut to give him more opportunities. The changes in setting show how Amory is like many other adolescences with promising futures, except his pretentiousness makes him a pariah in Connecticut, whereas his peers in Minnesota are more accepting. The story is told in third person, but follows Amory and his actions. They also show how he conducts himself and how that connects to superiot thinking.

Setting/Plot: In Minnesota, Amory's family and friends are more laid back and Amory is able to excel in that environment. He thinks his status is elevated in Minnesota, but when he attends school in Connecticut, he is put into "even competition." When he moves to Connecticut, he must accept that the people there are like him; so he changes his attitude so that he is more accepting and will be able to succeed. He changes at school and becomes an excellent student, star football player, and successful writer. Amory was able to adapt to his new surroundings and that change showed how Amory confronted his problems and moved forward.

Theme: The story shows how Amory changes as person, but still believes that he is on a path of greatness. The story shows how Amory also displays the greed that people had and how they overlook those who are below them (socially). It is also mention that this book is a parallel to Fitzgerald's life as a young man.

AOW 2/13: Hamilton Press Conference

This week's article comes from a speech given by Texas Rangers outfielder, Josh Hamilton. This press conference was in light of recent revelations of Hamilton relapsing with alcohol; Hamilton has battled an alcohol and drug addiction since he was a prospect in the early 2000s. Recently he was found to have gone out drinking in two different bars in the Dallas area. He stated that he wanted to address the media about the incident and explain his side of the story. He is very credible because of his past experiences and the fact he was able to combat his "demons" and overcome his addiction. He is also considered to be one the most well spoken player in Major League Baseball. His purpose is to apologize to his fans for his recent relapse and to explain what had happen in full detail. In his speech, Hamilton was addressing both the media and the fans. His speech had a lot of pathos throughout the entire piece. The speech came directly from him and was not written out in advance or rehearsed. He stated, "I did not write anything before this. All I am saying is directly from the heart." This shows that he was speaking true emotion in his words to show how sorry and regretful he was of his actions. He also uses communal memory of his rehab and connects to those struggling with rehab and those who followed him through his journey back to baseball. This allowed his speech to be more credible by showing that Hamilton knows the pains of relapse and addiction in general. It also gives him a better chance to receive forgiveness amongst his fans, friends, and family. Based on the speech alone, Hamilton accomplished his purpose, but time will tell if Hamilton will receive full forgiveness and if the Texas Rangers will give him the extension he is looking for.

IRB MP 3

This Side of Paradise
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Beginning-Book 1 Ch.2 (included), Book 1 Ch.3-Book 2 Ch.1 (Included), Book 2 Ch.2-End

AOW 1/30: POTUS Match

This week's visual comes from the ABC News site OTUS, a part of ABC News' website that has full in depth coverage and analysis about the Republican Primaries and the General Election in November. This interactive section of OTUS is called the "Match o Matic." The purpose of the site is to show the various political views of the candidates, and President Obama's as well, and have people select the candidate that best matches their political views. The site is delivered by organizing the selections by topics including key topics in the presidential primaries: abortion, gay marriage, global warming, and immigration. It is written for the voting population who may not divulge themselves in political news. The diction of the choices are equivalent to the views of the political candidates. It also has some of the same words and phrases they have said before, for example: Michelle Bachmann proposing to build a double-walled fence on the US-Mexican Border. The views are also distinctively different because each of the candidates may have different views on certain issues. The site also presents the information in random orders to prevent people from picking the selection in the same spots to insure their suggestion will match the candidate they want based on their prior knowledge. When one completes the survey, the site will use an algorithm and count the number of shared views and produce your top three candidates. Above the cartoon pictures of the candidates is a chart with shaded in boxes that show which issues that match your candidates. If one is to scroll over the issues, it will show what your candidate's stance is and how is compares to yours. This delivery and arrangement helps supports its purpose not only because they show which candidate would reflect your political views, but also educates the American voter on the candidates that are running. This web application is very effective because it is simple to use and educates and helps the users and voters on their voting decisions for the Republican Primary and the General Election.

AOW 1/23: Google+ v. Facebook

This week's article is from FoxNews through Laptopmag.com, a TechMediaNetwork Company. Laptopmag.com is a website that gives insightful reviews on tech gadgets and accessories. They have experience with internet apps and have the experience and knowledge to analyze Facebook and Google+. They compare and contrast the features of two similar and predominant social networks, Facebook and Google+. They breakdown the specifics of each site and compare them with specific rhetorical aspects, simplicity and capabilities, of each feature. They broke down: design, posting, sharing media, managing friends, following people, messaging, chat, and video, entertainment, and mobile. The article says that Google+ is the supreme social media site, but believes that Facebook's volume belittles the capabilities and simplicity of Google+. The purpose was to compare the websites and to show that Google+ is something people should be involved with as an aside of their Facebook account. The arrangement of the piece is very consistent, with a short exposition and conclusion at the beginning and end. In between those sections was analysis of each aspect. They were separated by a break to know when a new section began (Delivery). Within the subsections, the arrangement introduced both sites and followed with a paragraph that listed and explained the extra features that showed supremacy with either Facebook or Google+. In the text, the author qualifies his statements often by saying, "Both have video calling, but..." This pattern comes up very often to show that one site will have better capabilities than the other and explain why. This article was probably written to people who are either new to social networking or interested in creating an account with Google+. The author assumes that most of the readers have a Facebook account because he adds more detail to his description of Google+ to have the reader create and equivalent with Facebook. The author proved his purpose by comparing both social network sites in a simple arrangement that clearly spelled out the basis of his data.

Unit 3 Reflection

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for it." These immortal words from John F Kennedy exemplify the ideal relationship of the government and its people. Both sides enter a "contract," which states that the government protects and serves the people, while the people in return abstain from injustice. In reality, both sides do not necessarily hold up their ends of the contract, but they know what is expected. I noticed this theme throughout the different readings and the rhetoric shows that the government serves the people, but the people must be able to allow the government to be able to rule. I think that principle has lost its value because of the magnanimity of the present government, but many of the other ideals about protecting the rights of the individuals are definitely present in our government. 


In American democracy, people elect representatives to government who will serve in public office to work toward new reforms that will improve the betterment of society. In Patrick Henry's speech at the Virginia Convention and the Declaration of Independence, both authors discuss the course of action if a government has reached a point of injustice where action must be taken. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson states, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (Jefferson). It is the responsibility of the government to keep themselves from abusing their power and abducting the basic unalienable rights of the people. If they fail to do so, the people have an obligation to amend the government by reestablishing their own government that is fair and gives each individual their god-given rights. Due to the possible consequences, the government becomes obligated to dutifully serve their people and make decisions that will benefit and enrich society. In order to ensure the government's status, the people must help society and be able to work with the government to continue to make strides.


The people of the United States have lived under the same principles our founding fathers established over 200 years ago and have been under the jurisdiction of the same government for the same amount of time. The same government has established laws that build the foundation of our lives. It is our obligation to abstain from injustice and obey the laws the government has bestowed upon us. The government is obligated to pass laws that protect the well-being of Americans and with those laws comes an obligation to the people; obey these laws or their will be consequences based on the severity of your actions. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" (Jefferson). Jefferson states that the people's opinions should also have input in the implementation of laws, if a law threatens their unalienable rights, they have the right and the obligation to stand up in protest. I have experienced this firsthand. Recently large nationwide protests of the new Stop Online Piracy Act and the new Protect IP Act have began to take national prevalence. Many major websites, such as Google and Wikipedia, blacked out their website to spread awareness and have their users protest the new government bills. It is the people's duties to do whatever they can to prevent injustice of government. 


Citizen's and the government's duties act like a contract and a balance, they both must contribute to ensure that their livelihoods are protected. They also have obligations to mend any wrongs that may arise from the opposing side. By reading these pieces and understanding the rhetoric of the content, I notice that many of their ideals are based off checks and balances. If the government is wrong; the people fix it. If the people are unruly; the government must intervene. This helps society understand the principle that people must be cooperative and the government must ensure the safety of their people. With these established documents, both sides must understand the contract they have entered and must keep up their end. 

AOW 1/16: Moneyball 3

In the last section of Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair game, Michael Lewis examines the details of the foundation of the Oakland A's unheralded success. He also brings in his own experiences from observing Billy Beane and the Oakland A's to show Beane's erratic personality. One component of the Oakland A's success was their ability to find players who are undervalued. One player mentioned was submariner Chad Bradford, who was stuck in triple-A and was not going to be in the big leagues because people doubted his motion. Billy found that his unique submarine motion got hitters out and produced outs, so he traded for him and depended on Bradford heavily. Lewis also examines the history of sabermetrics and discusses Voros McCracken and FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching). Lewis effectively uses logos and ethos to show a strong connection between McCracken's statistic and Bradford's performance. Lewis is able to bring together his data/grounds to support his claim that the 2002 Oakland A's exhibited great success despite their limited payroll by using advanced statistical means and unorthodox scouting methods to build their roster. Lewis' awareness of Toulmin is evident because all of the data and grounds connects to his claim and are able to support a warrant: teams/persons with limited funds must look for alternative means to survive and succeed. Using the Bradford example, Lewis showed that Bradford's motion turned off teams from acquiring him despite his mind boggling numbers. Lewis connects the warrant to the Oakland A's and Billy Beane by concluding that chapter with Billy trading for Bradford and then promoting him to the Majors and giving him a key role in the bullpen. This connects to Lewis' warrant because Billy had to take a chance on him because he was a cheap and productive pitcher that was easily available. The Bradford story was an anecdote placed by Lewis, which comes in the middle of the story of the A's attempting to win their AL-Record 20th consecutive victory. By using Toulmin, warrant, appeals, and anecdotes, Lewis is able to show the uniqueness of the 2002 Athletics.

AOW 01/09: TARP Monolouge

This week's visual comes from a Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a satirical news show, segment that discussed the bank bailouts in 2008 and TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). He discusses how recent news of another bailout program had surfaced and how it compared to TARP. Stewart shows clips from Bloomberg News who help explain what happened in 2008. This helps Stewart establish credibility by using sources who gave raw numbers to support his position. His purpose is to show how the banks and the government made these bailouts a large scandal and that the government lost money and the banks made a large profit. He made this piece to people who did not fully understand TARP and to those who want to know more about the bank bailouts and the Wall Street collapse in 2008. He uses logos to explain how the banks made a large profit as a result of the federal bailouts. Near the end of the segment, he explains step by step how the secret bailout program was done and the audacity from the entire situation. He uses pathos to in the segment's title and his feelings towards the government in this situation. He explains how the bank withheld information of this secret program with the Federal Reserve while Congress was constructing bailout programs such as TARP and the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform. He also shows through his emotions and actions how outraged he is with the secret program. This secret program gave $7.7 trillion to the banks at 0.01% and then borrowed it back in 3% treasury notes, then the banks gave bonuses to their employees who were "OK" with the situation. Stewart uses the warrent of how people are supposed to make a profit and said the government failed completely and this whole situation epitomizes the entire financial crisis. Stewart is successful in achieving his purpose because of his use of emotions in simplifying the banks bailouts.

AOW 1/2: Moneyball 2

In this section of Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, Michael Lewis begins to chronicle the 2002 season of the Oakland Athletics. He describes the different events throughout the year from a day of trades to the end of the season with the playoffs. He shows Billy Beane's thought processes and how he is able to negotiate far-fetched trades and insert himself into a trade and make money to be able to pay a player. He details the history of sabermetrics and how they connect to his players. Throughout the story he shows the progress of the team how they steadily improve from a below .500 team to a 100 win team that put together a record setting 20 game win streak. Throughout the section Lewis uses the appeals to show the development of the Oakland A's new statistical approach to managing a low budget baseball team. He uses logos to show the difference between different players within the team. He uses statistics from different references and shows how they support Billy Beane's logical process and how they are able to justify the radical trades he made earlier in the season. He uses ethos to justify most of the moves that Billy Beane did throughout the season to manage the Oakland A's to over 100 wins and was able to do it the way he wanted to. The usage of ethos shows how Billy Beane is effective in running a team without money. When describing the players and staff he uses pathos to describe their fear and confusion with the entire system and operation. He gathers player's testimonies from that season and they say that Billy would congratulate them for odd feats such as taking more pitches even though they may go 0 for 4 that game and would criticize them even if they go 3 for 3 with 4 RBIs because they did not take pitches. With his usage of the appeals, Lewis effectively shows the radical system that overtook the Oakland A's and how it transformed the team into a winner.