Blog Post 3

I am not sure what “Sam Bacile” was thinking releasing this video. The only way I can see this in a vaguely positive light is if he merely meant to expose the hypocrisies in the stories of Mohammed (with which, I am afraid, I am not at all familiar). In addition, I suppose he could have meant this as a criticism of the Islamic tradition of revering Mohammed as a prophet, to the point of forbidding physical representations of him. In this way, he would be no different from other people who make similar social commentary, such as Matt Stone and Trey Parker when they made their Broadway musical the Book of Mormon, or people who criticize the Bible (by, for example, pointing out how many people God killed versus how many the devil killed). If he were trying to do this, it wouldn’t be intended as an insult of the Islamic tradition, but rather as a questioning of the ideals therein.

After briefly researching Coptic Christians, though, I think I can see a simpler motivation – tensions have been rising between Muslims and the Coptics due to attacks from militant Islamic extremists and discrimination. Perhaps this is “Bacile’s” way of getting back at the Muslims for the oppression of his Middle Eastern brothers.

For Terry Jones, I believe his motivations are quite clear. He is famously (or infamously, depending on your inclination) anti-Muslim, and burned copies of the Quran on the 9th anniversary of 9/11, and following the attack on the Libyan embassy, declared that he would screen the trailer for the film.

Before playing the believing game, I would like to say that I find the movie and Terry Jones insulting, and especially Jones absolutely offensive.

Now, as to possible explanations for his actions, perhaps, in his view, the Muslim faith is to blame for the terrorist attacks, and so he feels perfectly justified professing his anti-Muslim view.

Blog Post 2

I think the first effect of robocalls, yard signs, and bumperstickers is that it exposes you to the name of the candidate. This serves a very practical purpose on the basic level, which is that it lets you know who is running for the office. On top of that, though, it actually persuades you to vote for that candidate by a psychological principle called the familiarity effect. The familiarity effect says that the more familiar you are with an idea or person, the more you will favor it over others and the more you will feel warmly about it. Therefore, if you see a million road signs that say vote John Johnson, then one or two that say vote Robert Robertson, odds are you will favor John Johnson. Of course, in this case there is another dynamic – peer pressure. Despite the instant vision of middle school that this term conjures, peer pressure and the desire for conformity are a huge driving force. In fact, I can recall watching a study (again, in psychology) where the participant is put in a room with a group of actors, and is told that he/she is to participate in a perception study. Then the whole group is shown small groupings of lines so that they could say which line was longest, and the actors (pretending to be participants) would all choose the same wrong line. Eventually, the actual participant would simply agree with the rest of the group, despite seeing that the other members are obviously wrong.

As to rhetoric strategies, I would say that they usually appeal to your emotions, which is a very strong appeal, and which allows them to use somewhat less than factual claims. However, they appeal to different audiences. Robocalls, I would say, would only work on the older generation, or people who have more patience. For example, I know that I would never sit through a political recording over the phone, but my grandmother would listen to the whole thing before telling them at the end that she is a strong republican. Yard signs, I would say, are more useful on people who are driving or living near the person with the sign, simply based on repetitious viewing (again, familiarity and peer pressure). Bumperstickers are slightly different. There is absolutely no room for actual information, and so they use catchy slogans to attempt to get you to remember the idea, but again is there to get you to become familiar with and favor the idea that it put forward.

Blog Post 1

Thus far, I view them more or less equally, the reason being that both candidates will have a certain amount that they’re going to say (the other guy is going in the wrong direction, here, look at me, I’m a family man, etc.). After having seen Mitt Romney and having a rather impassioned, lengthy discussion with my heavily conservative (she’d say Libertarian) girlfriend, I’d have to say that the issues that I have been exposed to have little bearing on the office of the president. For example, on the issue of gay marriage, Obama has come out in support, whereas Romney has been silent (so far as I know). She put forth that that isn’t exactly an issue which the president would deal with; it’s more of a state issue. Upon reflection, I’d have to agree, so I’m forced to conclude that the articles and commercials up until this point haven’t actually given me serious information about the candidate’s position on more executive issues. All that I can be sure of is that we are swimming in our debt and that we may or may not be slowing it.

So, in other words, not much at all.

Therefore, I would like the candidate’s opinions on issues on which they will personally have a lot of influence. The first among these issues, I think, is our foreign policy, i.e. the troops remaining overseas in the Middle East. Of course, I could guess based on their party affiliation that Romney would be in favor of leaving the troops overseas, and Obama would be in favor of bringing them back. However, we are not out of the Middle East (though he did take them out of Iraq). So, obviously we can’t judge based on basic party affiliation. In addition, I would like to know the plan to lower the debt, create jobs, and deal with Medicare and Social Security.