"Serve The People" Speech by Mao Zedong

Purpose: Uniting china, communist or not, to work for the better of china; use soldier's memorials to come together as well as mourn the death. 

Audience: The people of China; the attendees of the memorial meeting for Chang Szu-teh.

Context: Took place directly under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, on September 8, 1944--about 5 years prior to the communist take over after winning their civil war. 

Section 1 Comrade Chang Szu-teh and Death

Purpose: Quickly states the dedication of the Communist party including Comrade Chang Szu-teh. Introduces the idea of death, specifically the significance of someone's death varying. If you die for the people its weightier than dying for the fascists. 

Effectiveness: Works well to make the Communist party look good and trustworthy in this time of losing someone as well as making Szu-teh death look heroic. 

A. Chang Szu-teh/Communism

Appeals: Pathos- "wholly dedicated to the liberation of the people and work entirely in the people's interests" Also Szu-teh being one of the battalions that passed. 

Technique: Very positive connotation of the Communist party. (Previous quote) 

B. Death

Appeals: logos-- uses a quote of an ancient Chinese writer Szuma Chien. 

Technique: Metaphor, juxtaposition, and parallel structure that creates an antithesis--the weight of someone's death

Section 2 Uniting 

Purpose: Not being afraid of criticism, working with outside parties to fix problems, we need everyone in China to come together and unite as a whole. Using the memorials of fallen soldiers to unite. 

Appeals: Logos-- when they listened to Li Ting-ming (not a communist). Ethos-- stating that they already lead 91 million people. Pathos- "Chinese people are suffering, it's our duty to save them" "must care for each other, must love and help each other" talking about death as well. 

Technique: 

• Imagery-- "We hail from all corners of the country..."
• Metaphor-- "Pluck up our courage"
• Connotation-- respectful and united: "must care for each other, must love and help each other"

Effectiveness: Works well, Mao gets his message across, as a reader you feel united as though you lived in China at the time. Works all the appeals in there for a good message. 

General Evaluation:

Mao uses very little rhetorical devices in his speech. In a way this becomes a rhetorical devise in order to really get his message across. The short speech was straight forward and got to his points, he only needed a few to add to the inspiration of his message. He does this well because his biggest rhetorical device of the antithesis sets a serious but positive mood to what he has to say. 

Inspiration Vs. Manipulation

Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X both are very motivated people who look to spread this motivation from with in them to the outside world; to use this for a better community and a better country. They want change for a higher quality of life, not just for themselves, but for their nation. Although, these two inspirational speakers are fighting for the same message, they have different ways of achieving it whether it is written towards self-realization or being upfront on the issue.

            Being courageous is the first step to motivation--for taking these risks of failure and setbacks of being thrown in to jail or hurt. Both speakers want this to be achieved for this reason. In Aung San Suu Kyi’s words taken from her “Freed from Fear” speech “Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.” She views fear as a common weakness that gets in the way of achieving the courage to stand up. Whether it’s fear of losing your power or being scorned by the power that governs you—“for fear is not the natural state of civilized man” this is why it has to be forgotten, and we have to learn how to work past it. Now here is where Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X both come together and split apart; the two of them speak of the courage and attaining it, but Malcolm X is more direct and harsh with his message. He makes you feel dishonorable by being direct and saying “If you don’t take this kind of stand, your little children will grow up and look at you and think “shame.” He pulls on your heartstrings to—although good—manipulate you to take that stand. “Let your dying be reciprocal” as in be the one to lead to the pack, everyone else will follow in your footsteps; this is how Malcolm X uses the being the majority in his manipulation.

            This is where the two speakers differ greatly, Aung San Suu Kyi has a more calm and collected tone which she uses towards her inspiration for the listeners and meanwhile Malcolm X bridles his anger as his tone and aims it in the direction of manipulation. I think of Aung San Suu Kyi as more of a philosopher tone, she reminds me a lot of Thoreau who famously wrote “let your life be the counter friction to stop the machine.” They both write, like in this quote, about overcoming the fears to be the one to stand up. Their messages are something to think about that you have to let sink in and a lot of the time those are the most powerful. For instance she writes, “Saints, it has been said, are the sinners who go on trying.” The in depth thought it takes to process this helps you come to a self-realization that in return motivates you. In contract Malcolm X tells you directly what is wrong and what you have to do to fix it. “Any time you demonstrate against segregation and a man has the audacity to put a police dog on you, kill that dog, kill him, I’m telling you, kill that dog.” Here he tells you what is wrong with our society—our own policemen keep us from carrying out our own law. Also telling us the remedy for a particularly common situation, killing the dog. Malcolm X does not hold back in the least, his angry tone causes him to lash out with intense statements such as these. This can scare people into the manipulation of doing what he says. 

A Cup of Tea with Thoreau and Machiavelli

I imagine Thoreau and Machiavelli sitting down for a cup of tea together as an utter disaster. Machiavelli would attempt to lay down his power by striking fear into Thoreau, maybe by offering him sugar for his tea and then dumping the whole thing into his cup. Thoreau then pushing his chair further away from the table in order to literally distance him self from the power and of course refusing to pay the bill at the end of this gathering. These two philosophers may not get along if they happened to know each other, but would their philosophies do the same? The similarities between Thoreau and Machiavelli's philosophies are purely structural--focusing on the relationship between the people and their leader; however their arguments are entirely opposite--how to govern your people correctly versus a how to guide on standing up against your government.

A government would not exist without it's people, so controlling the people with out upsetting them is a challenging task. This must be why these two philosophers chose to write on this subject. Thoreau wrote a guide for the people under the control of the government. His belief is that the people should control the government; it is a disgrace to him witnessing citizens experiencing a problem with their government, but merely putting up with it and moving on. He touches on his goal to change this in Civil Disobedience, specifically the end of the quote. "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtable its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform."In Thoreau's philosophy he focuses of the everyday citizens end of the relationship with government argument. Contrary to Thoreau is Machiavelli who's main focus is on the governing power. He teaches us how to properly govern your people. Though Machiavelli is a little more dark in his approach, he has many steps in his process to make sure your people listen.  He talks about this relationship with the people while beginning to explain the use of cruelty to govern in The Prince. "Therefore a Prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty..." This small excerpt is a demonstration of his philosophy based on the government end of the relationship argument. This is how Machiavelli and Thoreau are alike: they both focus on the relationship between the people and their leader/government.

As you can pick up from my similarities argument turning from similar into not so similar, Machiavelli and Thoreau and very different in their philosophies. If I were to go on about all of the differences between the two this blog post would turn into a novel; so I will only touch on a few. Starting with Thoreau, who has a guide on being the people of the government and not letting them get away with injustice. To break it down he endorses reform, in his words he wants you to "Let your life to be a counter-friction to stop the machine." If you see a problem with our government or our world, he wants you to stand up for it and not be afraid to do everything in your non-violent power to end it. Even using himself as an example of being a nuisance to the government by not paying his taxes and being sent to prison for it. With Machiavelli, he has a guide as well, but instead to the governing of these people. He want's to maintain order in the nation. He feels that the best way to attain your power is by using fear and cruelty, but not so much that you are hated. Here he talks about how a good leader has to be deceiving. "Therefore it is necessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them." Machiavelli seems to throw away his morals when it comes to being a good leader while Thoreau works off of his morals. This is where they are different, in morality, which end of the government is more important, and rebellion versus maintaining order.

Thanksgiving Bonding

Break. Thats I can ever think about when thanksgiving comes along--well besides the delicious feast that I often times find my self dreaming about beginning in the early spring. I have been working non-stop through the beginning of the school year and having these extra two and half days off are all I look forward to since the first day of school. I finally get this prolonged time to relax, I can even take a day to do things for my self instead of worry about a new project or school work. Oh but wait it gets even better, not only do I get these days off, but my brother and my friends return home from college. All I think about leading up to this day of thanks are the memories of my brother and I watching movie marathons and catching up because this is the only day neither of us have an excuse to leave. I always go back to the first year it happened, sibling bonding. Besides the other fond memories I had of us getting a long for maybe an hour or so, I always enjoyed the warm sensation that tingles through your body as you bring back that one particular childhood memory. It was one thanksgiving day where we weren't fighting or anything (shocking), it was peaceful, and for the first time ever--Patrick came to me and asked me to hang out with him. It resulted in watching numerous episodes of South Park from his DVD set and telling each other about our lives until we were called down to help with dinner. It may seem silly and not much but it was the beginning of what began a sibling friendship and closeness that most siblings don't get to enjoy, or just often times a lot later in life.

U.S.-Pakistani Relationship Portrayal in The Reluctant Fundamentalist

            The U.S.-Pakistani relationship has never been a very good one. It only got worse after 9/11 when the American people became racist and began to get aggressively disrespectful to any Middle Eastern looking men and women. This was displayed in The Reluctant Fundamentalist in numerous ways and most interestingly through the eyes of a Pakistani. Because Hamid depicts the balance between the harsh racists and the more open-minded American’s such as Erica so well, it creates a primarily accurate portrayal of the fragile U.S.-Pakistani relationship as it was then and now.

            Hamid portrays two different types of American psyches following the 9/11 attacks. He illustrates the negative racism that occurred to many. This was shown when a stranger approached Changez, the main character, in a parking lot and “made a series of unintelligible noises—“akhala-malakhala,” perhaps, or “khalapal-khalapala”—and pressed his face alarmingly close to mine.” (117) The stranger’s friend then pulled him away telling him it wasn’t worth it, but as he was leaving the stranger yelled “fucking Arab.” This obviously angered Changez because he was Pakistani, not Arab and it was clear the man was making fun of his native language. This was very common at the time because the attack struck fear into so many civilians, which resulted in many of them channeling it into racism. Hamid also shows us both ends of the spectrum. He has Erica, who Changez crushes on, which is a very accepting young woman that is actually supportive of his homeland. Erica often tells him how she so much enjoys hearing stories of Pakistan. In fact Changez wears his long white cotton traditional Pakistani styled shirt to a dinner at her house because he knows how it would please her. Hamid made Erica as an accurate portrayal of America’s society that was accepting and understood that not every Middle Eastern man or woman was a terrorist so there wasn’t anything to be afraid of.

            Although Hamid was successful with most of the depiction of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, he still had some flaws. The main inaccuracy that I saw was Changez smiling at the attacks of 9/11. I know that these attacks did make those who weren’t so fond of America happy, but I don’t believe it would make those who became a product of America happy. Changez went to school in the U.S., worked in the U.S., and lived in the U.S. so I do not believe it would make someone smile the way he did at the falling of the towers which is in fact the area where he lives. Because this character is a symbol for a Middle Eastern native living in America during this rise of racism, it would also be wrong for this symbol to live up to these racist people’s expectations.

            Overall Hamid’s portrayal of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship was very accurate, so much so that it is still relevant to today’s current relationship. Although the number of racist based crimes and racism have gone down dramatically, there are still people out there who are very racist even to this day. That is why most Middle Eastern men and women chose to look very American. Similar to how Changez was asked by his boss to shave his beard because it was making people uncomfortable. This beard that is looked at as traditional in his native country was now looked at as an image of terror in his current country. Sadly this is often still the case today. Since the attacks happened so long ago people aren’t as scared and worried. We have evolved to become more civil and understanding like the novel illustrated with Erica, the symbol for America’s society. 

Toulmin Analysis Blog

Claim:

Making abortion illegal is unconstitutional.

Reasons:

• Undermines the fourteenth amendment 
• Conflicts with religious freedom 
• Takes away a woman's voice

Evidence:

"Undermines the fourteenth amendment"- The fourteenth amendment is a declaration of equal rights for everyone without discrimination of race, sex, or religion. Taking away a woman's voice over her own body is taking away a human right.

"Conflicts with religious freedom"- The bible uses terms that refer to the an unborn child as a living human being and in the bible killing a human being is a sin.

"Takes away a woman's voice"- The government would be taking away the right of a woman to determine whether or not she would like to terminate a pregnancy.

Warrants:

"Undermines the fourteenth amendment"-

1. The fourteenth amendment is an important part of our nation.
2. The Government isn't aloud to undermine the fourteenth amendment. 

"Conflicts with religious freedom"-

1. Religious freedom is an important part of our nation.
2. Not all religions are against abortion.

"Takes away a woman's voice"-

1. A woman's voice needs to be heard.

Backing:

"The fourteenth amendment is an important part of our nation"- It is part of our constitution that makes sure we are all equals.

"The government isn't aloud to undermine the fourteenth amendment"- Because it is part of the constitution the government isn't aloud to make any laws that would take a way someone's right.

"Religious freedom is an important part of our nation"- This too is also in the constitution and is what our nation was built on so it an important value to America.

"Not all religions are against abortion"- Just because one religion disagrees with abortion doesn't mean all religions do so making it illegal would be forcing everyone to abide under one religion's view.

"A woman's voice needs to be heard"- Taking away a woman's right to make the decision her self is taking away her voice that everyone has and is important.

Analysis:

I was heading in the right direction, but I missed the last reason. I just ended up repeating myself from the first one. The first two reasons were affective because they come from the constitution and are each on different issues of making abortion illegal. I need to change "takes away a woman's voice" to something different that would prevent me from this repetition. I don't think the fourteenth amendment would need much backing as it pretty self explanatory and agreeable. I think a point I should have put in there is pointing out that if you don't want to the government telling you you can't have children then why would you want the government telling you you have to have children. 

Abortion

Abortion seems to be a very popular topic when it come to political conversations. It is a hot button issue for many due to the sensitivity of the subject. It is a matter of whether or not we should allow this to happen so casually in our nation. Actually it's even bigger than that, it includes so many pieces to this elaborate puzzle. Some of these pieces include the following: religion, small versus large government, when the baby is considered to be "alive," and human rights. According to the CDC abortion numbers have significantly gone down over the years, but the most recent count was in 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S.

There are numerous opinions on abortion, but it over all consists of pro life versus pro choice. Pro life supporters believe that it is unjust to abort a baby, that everyone deserves a chance at a life. They, like most people, see this large number of 1.21 million babies as too much. Not only is this looked at as wrong and murder, but most pro life supporters believe this for religious reasons. To sum it up, the bible uses the terms "man, woman, child, son, daughter, baby, etc" for unborn children so many Christians believe that this is evidence that human life is present before birth. Therefore abortion is murder so the government should not allow such a thing. The other stance is pro choice, that this is an issue between the mother and the child and the decision should be left to mother, not the government. The idea of taking this right away from a woman is unjust because it is her voice that is taken away from what she can and can't do to her own body. The government recognizes that a baby's life does not start until birth, so it is not considered murder in their eyes. They also think that by making abortion illegal it would be forcing everyone to abide by a religion, this then conflicts with religious freedom.

I believe that making abortion illegal would be taking away a woman's voice and right to her own body. In fact it would even undermine the fourteenth amendment to the constitution by striping a woman of her right to decide what she can and can't do to her own body. As previously stated, this would also conflict with religious freedom.

Being pro life is making sure America sticks to the constitution. It keeps equal rights to women as well as keeping religion out of government. We should leave the decision making to the people it concerns and other wise let them be. It is someone else's life it will affect and because of that no one else should have a say in it, especially our government. If we stop listening to our constitution, then what else is next?

Sources
Abortion and Pro Life Information and Statistics
Abortion and the Bible
The Fourteenth Amendment

Chances

Everyone deserves a chance at a life is what most pro-life supporters argue. Chance is defined as a possibility of something happening. A possibility of something happening could also be a bad thing, kind of like a risk. There is always a reason behind terminating a pregnancy, no one ever just wakes up one morning deciding you want to kill a baby.

By taking away a woman's choice to dictate what they want to put their own body through, you're taking away their voice. Stepping back decades to when they couldn't vote, but maybe even further since now it would be taking away their right to be in charge of their own body. Anyway when you have to force someone to have a baby, to give that baby's life a chance you are also risking a chance of child abuse and neglect. Like I said, there is always a reason behind having to terminate a pregnancy whether it is because of medical reasons from the baby or the mother or a whopping 93% more likely to be due to social reasons such as not being financially stable for a child or the baby is unwanted. Sure adoption is an option but our adoption system already includes 423,000 children in the U.S. alone. The kids in this system seem to result in going from foster home to foster home and on average taking at least 3 years before the child is adopted. That is very hard for a young child to accept. In fact there is even a possibility for that child to be stuck in foster care all his or her life until he or she ages out like the other 29,000 each year.

Giving a baby a chance at life is also giving that baby a chance at not having a loving a family or even a family for that matter. We have to keep in mind that it is human for people to mess up and make mistakes so to not allow women to fix theirs isn't very fair. Especially when in can result in a life being brought into the world with a very grim and uncertain destiny.

Their Opinion Should Be Everyone's Opinion?

I couldn't stop itching my dry skin on the drive to the doctors. I must have taken about a total of 12 showers in the past 3 days, I no longer have the ability to feel clean after he touched me. Trying to erase the memory that has been haunting me by removing him from my skin and hair. No matter how hard I will try I will never be able to get rid of him completely, considering he left me with his child as a reminder of what he did to me. As though forcing himself on me and ruining my sanity wasn't enough, oh no it wasn't because he left me with this reminder inside of me that my body was nurturing to grow into a real life manifestation of HIM!
I pull up to my doctors office and there is a group of protestors outside. I park my car and walk towards the building, I'm immediately bombarded by these strangers. One man is holding a sign that says "Abortion is MURDER" another is holding one saying "Everyone Should Have a Birthday". They are all screaming at once, most of them just repeating what their sign says. I almost make it to the door when the crowd gathers in front of it and won't let me pass.
"I'm not letting you kill that baby its murder!" A woman yells.
I try to ignore it and not let it get to me to push my way through, they still won't budge. They start reading off statistics of how many babies were killed last year. The anger and embarrassment starting swelling up inside me, I don't want to kill a baby, but I can't have this product of a rape in the world! I finally couldn't take it and screamed,
"I was rapped! What do you expect me to do with this baby then?!"
I didn't get the silent reaction or apologies I was hoping for.
"If it was a legitimate rape then you wouldn't be pregnant, your body would have shut down!"
"Raising a child can help you heal and forgive from the traumatic event!"
"Give the baby a chance!"
My jaw drops, I can't believe the things these people are saying!
"Let me through! You're not the one getting the abortion so why would it matter?"
No budge. I just keep hearing the same things repeated,
"Murderer!"
"Give the baby a chance"
"That baby is a gift from god!"
I knew they wouldn't let me through and I could no longer take it, I ran back to my car in tears. Just because these people don't believe in something they think they should force their opinion on everyone else. Trying to make abortion illegal as though they all know what it is like to be raped! Oh yeah and it no problem having to raise the child of the man from your nightmares! This is insane! Why can't we all just agree to disagree and let everyone do what they want to if it will make them happy, it's not like it will affect their lives in anyway. After all it is my life and not theirs!

Lying Teachers and Sentence Imitation

"Antigua is a small place. Antigua is a very small place. In Antigua, not only is the event turned into everyday but the everyday is turned into an event. (Here is this: On Saturday, at market, two people who, as far as they know, have never met before, collide by accident; this accidental collision which the two people stand at opposite ends of a street and shout insults at each other at the top of their lungs. This event soon becomes everyday, for sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, the shouting and the insults begin.) But event turned into everyday and everyday turned into event do not remain event and everyday, in a fixed state. They go back and forth, exchanging places, and their status from day to day depends on all sorts of internal shadings and internal colourings, and the forces manipulate these internal shadings and internal colourings are kept deliberately mysterious and unknown." (56) -Jamaica Kincaid, A Small Place

Certain teachers lie. Certain teachers are liars. These teachers, tell you something to win over your first impression of them yet they won't actually follow through with it. (This is how it goes: if you have a problem, with homework, classwork, anything, I can help, email me; when you actually email them with your problem you are instantly shot down with being told that their class should be priority over all your other classes and activities. This isn't right, he/she isn't going to help me, those were lies, this person is in fact a liar.) I don't understand why this teacher would tell an entire class to only earn the trust of everyone, and then crush it. Misleading students from day one, where is the logic, it really just doesn't make sense my brain can not connect these two ideas to fit in an logical point.

Things I Complain About On a Daily Basis

Society/Miscellaneous

• The fact that pet adoption organizations such as the Humane Society or ASPCA are so picky about giving pets to loving homes that they would rather euthanize a cat than give it to a family who would let it be an indoor and outdoor cat.
• Why do people think that their opinion is superior, so much so that they think they should make laws to force people to abide by their opinion? For example many people don't believe in abortion or gay marriage so people want to make/keep it illegal. Why don't we just let everyone make their own decisions if it makes them happy and it doesn't hurt anyone else in the process? 
• The noises people make while eating, I really don't want to hear all the moaning to let everyone know you're enjoying your food. 
• People who chew gum like a cow with their mouth wide open while also making all the gross noises. 
• When people say they hate America, a large majority of the ones I know don't know anything about this country. If you really don't like it then participate in politics or just leave. 
• When I ask a question and I get a 20 minute response with no actual answer to the question.

School

• Students who ask questions to things they already know in order to impress the teacher and make them seem interested, it's a waste of class time and most of the time you just sound like an idiot. 
• When new rules are made to make things stricter on the students because of the minority of students who don't behave-- punish them, not the whole school. 
• Teachers who say email them if you have a problem or need to reschedule a homework assignment. Saying they are "pretty cool" or "lenient," but when you do they either don't respond till the next day or just respond with "this class should be a priority above all of your other classes."
• Lunch detentions for not having completed the homework in CGS. If this school is going to have tougher classes than BMHS and be on a different scale for student maturity, then shouldn't we go back to being treated like adults. After all it is our own responsibility to finish it on our own time.
• Slow walkers who take up the whole hallway or who get mad when you pass them. 

Norwalk

• People who complain about how boring our town is and that "there is nothing to do here." Try living in Elizabethton, Tennessee the fun thing the teenagers do there is meet up in a superstore parking lot and hang out. 
• Putting tar over the cracks on the streets will only make the bumps worse. Seriously who's idea was that? 

The Awesome and Over All Better Ashley

Ashley, that is the name my parents knew that they always wanted to name their daughter. The only problem with that was the fact that their first born was a boy. It took years for them to finally admit to us about initially being disappointed when they were given this shocking news and I of course took it upon my self to remind my older brother Patrick that I was "wanted" and therefore the "favorite" child everyday since then. Although there was another problem that occurred with this lovely name that my parents soon came to realize while signing me up for nursery school and it was that Ashley had been a very popular name for my generation. I then also came to this realization and thought it would be a great idea to just ditch the name entirely and tell everyone to call me by my new name, Rosie. Eventually after all the name tags I had stuck onto my shirt and the corrections I went through I became aware that I was stuck with Ashley. This name was a part of me that I could no longer just get rid of so I then sought out to make sure I made it unique to myself.

In the process of making this name unique I followed one of my passions, horseback riding. At the barn I made a very close friend who I work with everyday I am there, and can you guess what her name is? Ashley! As we both got older and eventually became instructors who give the younger kids lessons and during the summer counselors at the camp. We were then referred to by the campers as "Ashley A" and "Ashley B" even though I tried to convince the campers to refer to me as "The Awesome and over all better Ashley," they never caught on.

Over the years I learned that I can't make my name more unique literally, but I can by just being who I am. (Cheesy I know) But who I am is more important than the words I write down on my paper or the fact that I have to add numbers to a username when I try to use "ashleyaylward"and its already been taken.