What is a protest again???

In the beginning, I believed that a protest was an event or action taken to go against something in society or the world. I still believe that this is true. However, I believe a protest can be anything, big or small. Furthermore, I don't think a protest has to be a huge event in order to be considered a protest. A protest can be as small as a flier against war or a person holding a sign for Animal rights. Although I still think that in order for a desired action to occur after a protest, the protest must be big enough to gain public attention to it. By big, I mean that the protest must be a noticable event that occurs so that people will pay attention. Otherwise, there really is no point in protesting if nothing happens afterwards. People would just shrug off the protest and act as if it never happened if the protest wasn't big enough.

Nowadays, I think people should rely on the shock value to protest, but it's really hard to do so. People have seen too many shocking things to be surprised about anything any more. For instance, I never knew who Malachi Richter was until I read about him in class. It appears he burned himself to death to protest against the Iraq war or something. Although what he did to protest was shocking, it obviously wasn't that big of a deal. Not many remember him or even know about him. I think this was because he copied what others did to protest. If you see the same thing everyday, it no longer seems new or worth paying attention to. This is why I think that using the shock value is hard, but it's also the easiest way for people to listen to you. After all, I'm sad to say that our society is attracted to outrageous things.

Protest song

The protest song "Oh, Freedom" protests against the evils of slavery and prejudice. This song was made during the Civil Rights Movement. It talks about preferring death rather than slavery and calls out for freedom. In my opinion, protest songs are very effective. Music has always been an integral part of peoples' lives, no matter what the time period is. People use music to communicate to the world about emotions or events in their lives, so I think using songs to protest against something is a very productive way of protesting. Furthermore, people are able to remember songs more than they remember speeches because listening to songs is definitely more interesting than listening to speeches. However, giving speeches probably last longer than singing songs because there are too many songs in the world for people to pay attention to just one. When I was looking up my protest song assignment for "Oh, Freedom," it was difficult to find the complete lyrics for that song. I had to listen to the song on youtube and then write down the lyrics. Therefore, speeches last longer than songs because songs tend to disappear through time. However, I still think using music to protest is a better and more fun way of protesting against something, and I would use music to protest against something in society if I had a choice.

With friends like these--the rhetoric of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore

I consider Ann Coulter and Michael Moore both to be protestors because both are arguing against something or someone. Ann Coulter is protesting against liberals, and Michael Moore is protesting against the US government and President Bush. However, I find Michael Moore to be more persuasive than Ann Coulter. In Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, he provided many points and facts to support his arguments about President Bush. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, made fun of people and used false statements to support her argument. Because of this, I found Michael Moore to be more persuasive. However, I think Ann Coulter is more popular than Michael Moore because of the way she uses outrageous comments to interest people. She says things like “Hillary Clinton’s chubby legs” to shock people and get people interested in reading her books. Nevertheless, because her comments have no relation to her argument, people would usually disregard her point-of-views. Michael Moore, however, provided evidence for his views and arguments to prove his points, but everyone does this. Therefore, most people probably won’t pay as much attention to Moore as they did to Ann Coulter because he protests the way everyone else does. For instance, he doesn’t do anything outrageous but just points out facts to people to convince them of his argument.

Fallacies and Ann Coulter

After watching the clips about Ann Coulter and the arguments she makes, I didn’t find the things she said very persuasive. First of all, she makes fun of people’s physical appearance, and she tends to ignore and purposely misinterpret the ideas of others. For instance, she made fun of Hillary Clinton’s legs. I don’t see what Hillary’s legs have anything to do with politics and Coulter’s argument, yet Coulter seems to just randomly makes fun of people in her books just to make things interesting. Furthermore, she constantly makes false statements in her book. In the clip where Coulter talks with Al Franken, she basically ignored Franken when he pointed out that one of the quotes she made in her book was false, proving that she is untrustworthy.

Overall, what I really disliked about Ann Coulter was when she continued to disregard the opinions of others and then accuse others of doing that to her, especially the part she wrote about the widows. She says the widows shouldn’t come out and speak and allow others to speak, yet when the reporter told her that they never forbid Coulter to say anything, Coulter did not really respond to that statement. Instead, she just says the widows of 9/11 shouldn’t have the freedom to speak their opinions. Basically, Coulter wants to say that only she has the right to say something about the world and politics, and everyone else should shut up and listen. In my opinion, I think Coulter is a hypocrite and that everything that comes out of her mouth or from her book is false. I don’t think anyone should waste time speaking to her or arguing with her about her ideas because she’d probably ignore it and disregard it anyway.

My Opinion on JESUS CAMP

After watching Jesus Camp, I can honestly say that I am not convinced on whatever the argument the documentary is trying to make. It seems to me that the documentary is trying to convince others to become Christians by using children as a persuasive weapon. In my opinion, there are good and bad sides to everything, but the documentary mostly showed the good side of Christianity. There were no other point-of-views from other children who do not believe in Christianity, and to me, that was what made it unconvincing. Furthermore, I think they should not have used children to portray their argument. Children believe in everything anyone tells them. I know, because I believed in everything my teacher or my parents said as a child. I didn’t know how to think for myself. Therefore, I don’t think using children to persuade others into spreading Christianity was very wise.

Another thing I noticed most about the documentary was that the main speaker, Becky Fisher, was not very persuasive in her argument, especially the one about sins. She spoke of people sinning, but it doesn’t seem like she has been doing her part. She spoke of fasting, but it doesn’t look as if she has been fasting in the name of the Lord as well. From my experience, Christianity seems to mean generosity towards others and not being judgmental against others because that’s God’s job. Yet, from the documentary, I see people criticizing others who are different from them. For instance, the Harry Potter comment made no sense to me. I’m positive that Harry Potter has nothing to do with Christianity, so I don’t think Fisher should have used that example to make her points.

Overall, I think the documentary was okay. I didn’t dislike it, but I didn’t find it very convincing either. If the purpose of the documentary was to show the faiths of children, it should have shown other types of religion that children can have. Anyway, I hope no one got offended by my opinions on the documentary, as I realize that religion is a very sensitive subject. I don’t want to insult anyone with my comments, and I just wrote the truth as I see it.

My Writing Process

When I start to write a paper, I always try to make sure I understand the topic first. I will spend the first day after getting the assignment thinking about the topic and planning my introduction for a paper. After I am confident about understanding the topic of the paper, I usually begin writing. I tend to free write because I think outlines are a waste of time. In high school, my teachers would tell me to write an outline of a paper assignment, and they never helped. My paper never followed the outlines, and I never looked at the outlines to write my paper. I always change everything, so that the paper turns out to be completely different from the outline.

Furthermore, I think free writing is better because it makes your paper sound better. When I free write, I always wait until I feel like it before writing the next sentence. I think this is the best way to write a fluent paper. I also liked to be surprised by my sentences, and I think it makes writing a paper fun. In my opinion, writing should be fun.

The hardest part about writing a paper for me is developing ideas about a topic I dislike. In the past, there were some topics I either didn’t like writing a paper about or just had difficulty understanding the topic. I think it’s very hard to write about something that you don’t like. It’s hard to develop good ideas about a topic if you don’t even like that topic, and I kind of dislike it when people expect something good out of the paper that you hated writing about. I suppose that we can’t have everything we want in life, and I guess I just have to deal with it.

The kind of environment I like writing in is when there is background music. I hate it when it’s really quiet, because the kind of environment that I grew up in was never quiet. My family has always been noisy, so I like it when there is music playing when I’m doing something. It’s what I’m used to.

How does appearance affect protest?

After watching the Yes Men, I really liked the way that the Yes Men presented themselves. Mike and Andy provided humor and dramatics to prove their point that the World Trade Organization was not helping other developing countries to improve. I liked how they would try to pretend they were representatives of the WTO and speak about them and how their audience would never react to the outrageous comments they made. I think they were not very effective, though, because many of their audiences did not react to their claims that the WTO was actually trying to make money by taking advantages out of poor countries. They even made outrageous costumes that were really silly to prove their points that the WTO was a silly organization. The Yes Men would wear business suits and would lie that they were representatives of WTO while making outrageous comments about WTO at the same time. I thought this was really funny, but I probably would not support them because I think lying does not help with their ethos. Who would be willing to believe the Yes Men and support them if they use lies as a technique to advocate their opinions?

I think appearance is very important for a protest group to advocate their opinions against someting. If a protest group seemed very professional and looked like they know what they are talking about, people would most likely take the protest group seriously and be willing to support them. However, if a protest group uses a silly and laughable appearance, most people would not take the protest group seriously and would most likely laugh off the protest group’s opinions.

Staging protests in different mediums

Both the PETA and the Guerilla Girls used the internet to voice their opinions and talk about what their organizations are all about. PETA used a lot of billboards, and the Guerilla Girls used a lot of posters. In my opinion, all of these mediums used can be seen by many people. However, I think using billboards or posters are more effective because people are able to see it more easily if it’s “eye-catching.” For instance, everyone uses the internet, but that doesn’t mean that posting things on the internet will get you attention. There are so many things on the internet that many of the things posted there are unseen or missed by others. Therefore, I think using posters or billboards is the most effective medium to use when trying to voice an opinion or promote an organization.

After reading about the PETA, I understand what they are trying to do and say. However, I don’t necessarily agree with everything they say and do. They believe that all animals have rights and that they should not be inflicted unnecessary pain. I agree with this. However, I also believe that sometimes pain is necessary to progress. Humans, for instance, have undergone much suffering and pain to be where we are today. We’ve been through wars, starvation, storms, etc. to be what we are now. All of this included pain and suffering, but without pain or sacrifice, there can be no progress. It may seem heartless and unmoral to say such a thing, but in reality, from what I’ve seen in this world so far, this is true. I don’t like it, and I don’t like thinking about it. However, it doesn’t make it any less true. I believe in the cause of the PETA, but I think they are fighting a losing battle. It is in our nature to use animals for many purposes, whether as food or as clothing. Just as animals use other animals for food, humans will continue to use animals for food or other purposes. It’s one fact of life that cannot be changed, whether or not people like it.

I really liked the Guerilla Girls after reading about them. They are funny, and I love the way they voice their opinions. They are also mysterious and unique compared to other organizations. I believe in feminism (of course, that’s probably because I’m an American female), and I like humor. Therefore, I really liked the way they executed their opinions through humor. Not only did they catch peoples’ attention by doing so, people will most likely be drawn to them because of the funny way they promote their organization. Funny things have always attracted a lot of people, and I think they are correct in using this method to attract others in listening to their opinions. If I started an organization, I would probably use the same methods to get peoples’ attention and get people to listen to my opinions.

Critical Mass: A Protest without a Leader

After watching We Are Traffic, it seemed that Critical Mass was just a group of people that joined together on bicycles to go for a ride. I don’t think it was really a protest movement because, from my experience and knowledge, protest movements are usually organized and have a specific leader and purpose. Critical Mass was not organized and had no leadership, so it didn’t really seem like a protest with the way it was designed. It seemed it was just like a bunch of people having fun riding bicycles at random times instead of driving their cars. Furthermore, there didn’t seem any centralized purpose to it. Everyone joined for different reasons, whether it was to save the environment or have fun. If I had seen something like the Critical Mass, I probably would have cheered them on, except when I’m running late to a class or something. Then, I’d probably be annoyed that they were being selfish and blocking other peoples’ traffic, but then again, that’s probably a normal reaction that everyone would have.

The one thing that stood out to me after watching the movie was when the police started getting involved. I have to admit that I was as annoyed by that as much the people in Critical Mass. I don’t think they were doing anything illegal that needed the escort of the police. I don’t like that the police and the mayor tried to interfere with the peoples’ freedom. There is nothing wrong with riding a bicycle with other people, and arresting people for riding the way they want to is, to me, a way of imposing the freedom of the people. Furthermore, I think the involvement of the police kind of made the activity not as much fun and carefree as before, and you could feel that the people in the Critical Mass thought the police was trying to undermine what they were doing. In my opinion, Critical Mass was just the name for the activity they were doing, not a protest movement, so the police and the mayor should never have gotten involved. I understand that they were doing it for the public safety, but I don’t think that is a good enough excuse to interfere with the freedom of others.

Ethos as a means of persuasion

After finding out about all these protests, I would say that the ethos of each was very believable. All protests gave many facts and background information about the people protesting against something, and in my opinion, facts are the most convincing because they are true. However, I think Martin Luther King when making a speech about the Freedom Marches was most persuasive because he is the only one that can prove that what he says is true. Furthermore, there were a lot of people that supported him. Cindy Sheehan makes many claims, yet I don’t think she can prove that all she says is true. For Malachi Richter, I believe that he should have taken a different way to protest against the Iraq war. One person can make a difference, but not through the expense of his family’s pain. Therefore, I think the ethos of the Freedom Marches is most persuasive because many supported it and the claims they made were very true.

The kind of ethos I find most appealing is situated ethos, where your reputation already exists and can be proven true. In my opinion, I think that a person’s claim must be able to be proven true in order to be believable. Otherwise, you’re just listening to someone else’s opinion and false claims. I have never really supported a protest group before, but if I could, I would support a group where I can see the proof that their claims are true and just.

Ethos, pathos, and logos

In Fannie Lou Hamer’s speech, she talks about the consequences of her trying to register to vote. She uses logos appeals by giving her accounts of what happened when she refused to withdraw her registration to vote. For example, she uses logos appeals when she talks about her observations on going to jail and losing her job after registering to vote. She describes how she lost her job very vividly and what happens when she is beaten while in jail. Furthermore, the author uses ethos appeals when she gives facts about her personal background—who she worked for, her name, where she lived, etc. The author also used pathos appeals evoking sensations. She does this by describing her beating when she was in jail to try to make people understand the fear she felt during that time.

In Stokely Carmichael’s speech, he talks about the concept of black power and how the white population has tried to destroy it. He uses logos appeals by appealing to our common sense and using examples from history to explain his point. For example, he used common sense to explain the failure of the civil rights bill. He says that the civil rights bill were for white people, to let white people understand that black people should be allowed certain rights because they are human beings as well. Furthermore, he uses ethos appeals by giving personal impressions of what happened to him when he tried to vote to convince us of the wrongdoings he has suffered due to being black. He says how he was beaten, shot at, or jailed just because he wanted to vote. Carmichael also uses the pathos appeals by explaining how the black population is tired of white supremacy. He says that black people are “tired of trying to prove things to white people” and that the black population has the right get things they need to function as human beings.

I believe the appeal that is most dominant of these speeches is logos because both authors of the speeches try to explain how the black population has suffered due to the fact that they want certain rights as human beings. Both authors offer accounts of how they have suffered as African Americans, trying to fight for certain rights they believe every human deserves. I think this appeal is most dominant because people listen to logical claims from other people. If you use logic to persuade people, people will believe that what you are saying makes complete sense and will most likely believe you.

I believe in...

I believe in honor. I believe in compassion and love. I believe in protecting and loving your family through the ups and downs of life. I believe in talking to your family at least once a day. I believe in all kinds of freedom. I believe in determination to reach your goals. I believe in confidence to live through each day with joy and love. I believe in having a good sense of humor, most of the time anyway. I believe in nature and its perseverance. I believe in all forms of art, including playwriting, painting, etc. I believe in peace in the world. I believe in eliminating world hunger. I believe in letting nature takes its own course, without interference from people. I believe in the magic of books, especially Harry Potter. I believe in justice. I believe in the right to survive. I believe in eating a variety of foods every day. I believe in respect for all forms of life. I believe in removing human prejudice. I believe in education for all children and adults in the world, no matter how old they are. I believe in the independence of Taiwan from China. I believe in pride in one’s own heritage and culture. I believe in real friendship. I believe in good movies, whether cartoon, animation, or just with real people. I believe in love and trust and having an open mind to accept all differences from anyone in the world.

Concept of Protest

In my opinion, I believe a protest occurs when someone disagrees with something in society and decides to take action against that something. For instance, a protest occurs when a person disagrees with a law of society and then takes action to let their opinion known that he or she is against it. For something to count as a protest, I believe that the person who is protesting against something must gain the attention of society. In order for that person's opinion to be known that they are against something, that person must let people in society realize his or her opinion. Otherwise, their opinion is of no great influence, and the protest is useless and unsuccessful from the start. A protest must be recognized and must gain the attention of society, in order for it to be a protest. In my opinion, some conditions for something to be considered a protest are that it must gain public attention, must be logical and reasonable so that people will support it, and must cause a great change and influence in society. Furthermore, I believe a protest must be a huge event. Otherwise, no one would pay attention to it, and the protest would not matter to anyone. It would be as if you had never protested in the first place. In addition, a protest is only successful when the protest succeeds in causing the change it desired in the first place. Therefore, I believe that the results of a protest are the most important to its success.