Author:
The author's signature is in the top left corner but I can't read it nor can I recognize it. But I do know that the author does not like Obama.

Purpose:
To prevent Obama from getting re-elected/convince people that his presidency was based on "empty rhetoric".

Context:
Obama's first term is coming to a close and his campaign for re-election has begun.

Rhetorical Analysis: 
The main device used in this image is its use of communal memory. Everyone recognizes that image as the stereotypical Jesus rendition and if they didn't, the "water into wine" comment certainly conveyed that this man was supposed to be Jesus. In this cartoon, the author clearly uses juxtaposition to insult Obama. One of the reasons that Jesus is so beloved (besides the fact that he's the son of God) is because he is so humble. Jesus' outfit reminds viewers of this characteristic and highlights Obama's lack of it. Obama's suit and his comment placing himself above Jesus suggest his lack of humility. Additionally the cynical way in which he is smiling, creates distrust between Obama and the audience. The author's word choice also made this cartoon effective. The use of the phrase "empty rhetoric" allows the audience to identify the author's point of view about Obama's presidency which is that it is based on a bunch of lies. Additionally, rhetoric has a negative connotation, especially in when used in political contexts, and the use of this word helped to establish the tone of the painting. Overall, this cartoon's use of rhetorical devices helped to clearly identify the author's feelings about Obama and his presidency. However, if the author was trying to get others to feel the same way, this cartoon was incredibly ineffective. The strategies integrated into this painting wasn't nuanced enough which made the author come on a little too strong.

Newt Gingrich exploits politics of class and culture

Source: 
This article was from the Washington post from an "opinion writer."

Context:
This article was written in response to Gingrich's victory in South Carolina over Romney.

Purpose:
The author's purpose in creating this article was to explain, and perhaps exalt, Gingrich's political strategy.

Rhetorical Analysis/Effectiveness:
This author used very concise language. His sentence structure was relatively simple and he did not use any superfluous wording throughout. This definitely helps readers, especially those who aren't as familiar with politics (like myself), to better understand his points. Additionally, this author had a very biased tone. He did nothing but exalt Gingrich the whole 2 pages. This made me question the credibility of the author and the validity of the article. I am sure that every move Gingrich made was not as flawless as the author portrayed it as. However, to compensate for  this loss of credibility he used testimonies (albeit from very biased Gingrich supporters) and statistics to substantiate his findings. In my opinion though, an editorial is similar to a debate: you only mention information that supports your belief. I feel that the people who read this article, went in knowing this and therefore did not expect an entirely honest (in terms of including both the successes and failures of Gingrich's campaign) article. However, this article did give me a better understanding of Gingrich's political campaign and was successful in that manner.

Unit 3 Reflection

"When any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community [government], they have thereby made that community one body,with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority" (Locke). According to John Locke, this is how a government is formed; it is formed by the people, for the people. Therefore it is no secret that the role of government is to provide for its people. However, the obligations of the people in that society are a lot less concrete. What is the individual’s duty to his government? Throughout this country's history, we have been able to glean some information that may propose an answer to this question.

The works of Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln have all hinted at the role of individuals within American society. Each share a similar message, for they all speak of freedom, justice, and morality in their pieces. While it is the individual's role "give up all the power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into society" (Locke), it is also the duty of the individual to uphold the purpose of the American government, which is to preserve the freedom, liberty, and natural rights of American and the world's citizens. In his inaugural address, Kennedy compels Americans to engage in "a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself." These aspects of society are in direct contrast to the American mission and therefore it is the duty of the citizens to aid the government in eradicating them from society.

However, what if the government is the perpetrator; what if the government is actually the one who allows and perpetuates these circumstances? This is where Martin Luther King Jr. and Cady Stanton's works become especially meaningful. It then becomes the responsibility of the individual to speak up against such injustices. They must stand firm in their belief that these actions are unjust and make their claims known and adhered to. However, these stances must be taken without the aid of violence or disturbance, not only for moral reasons, but for practical ones as well. As Ghandi, King, and Stanton have demonstrated, persistent civil disobedience is more effective than violent insurrection. It allows the rebels to be seen in a more positive light, making their movement a lot more persuasive and credible. It is only through persistent civil disobedience that the people of society change their views. And when the majority of the citizens change the views on a matter, the government must respond and act accordingly, for it is the will of the majority that decides, albeit indirectly, the policies of the American government. In this manner, it is the duty of the individual to ensure that both society and the government do not stray from the principles of natural rights, liberty, and "proposition that all men are created equal" (Lincoln) that this country was founded upon. However, in order to assume this role, all of us "need to pass the 'do-nothingism'" (King). We need to surpass our apathetic natures and become an active voice in the movement against injustice. Additionally, we need to respond quickly to injustice. We have to realize that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

I, myself, am a victim of this state of mind. Like many others, even when I know that something is wrong, I succumb to the 'do-nothingism' mentality. Though I am well aware of the conflicts occurring in Darfur and North Korea, I have not done anything to improve their state of living. Therefore, I am not fulfilling my responsibilities as a citizen even though the conflicts are occurring in foreign lands because, as Martin Luther King Jr. once noted, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I hope to one day reach the degree of citizenship that Cady Stanton and Martin Luther King Jr. once achieved and become an active participant in the struggle that John F. Kennedy once advocated for.

The Man Who Made Wallstreet: Final Section

Summary:
This section was all about the Morgan-Drexel partnership; how it was formed, the relationship (professional and personal) between the men, and how it led to rise of "modern finance". Dan Rottenberg continues the practice of using financial investments the two made in order to explain why the duo was so influential in the world of financing. He brought up deals they made with the government, other businesses, and foreign nations throughout the piece.


Rhetorical Analysis:
In the first two sections of this book, while Rottenberg provides plausible explanations for Drexel's actions, he maintains an unbiased and objective tone. This tone allowed the reader to create their own opinion about the integrity and personality of Anthony J. Drexel. However, this section was completely different. This section presented Anthony J. Drexel in a whole new light. Rottenberg characterized him as somewhat of a saint, a man filled with integrity. He does not refrain from offering his own opinions on the great financier. However, the author always proceeded to validate his claims with testimonies from friends of Drexel and other financiers. In this way, the author was able to make these assertions while maintaining and establishing new credibility. As previously mentioned, Rottenberg also incorporates specific examples of the duo's financial dealings into the book. After a concise summary of these dealings, the author explains why these dealings were "able to steer American business through the most extraordinary long-term economic growth of any nation in world history," thus giving more support to the theory that Drexel was indeed the "man who made Wall street." These explanations also helped readers, (such as myself) who aren't as familiar with the practice of banking and financing, to gain a better understanding of the American economy and the cyclical nature of Wall street. Though these rhetorical strategies were essential to convey the author's purpose (that Drexel was perhaps the most influential man in American finance), this support neglects to mention one crucial aspect: why Morgan is credited with the making of Wall street and not Drexel. Rottenberg used his knowledge of Drexel and Morgan's relationship, in order to explain the reasoning behind this and portray Drexel as an incredibly righteous man. Rottenberg claimed that Drexel was a firm believer in the notion that "there is no limit to what one can accomplish if one doesn't mind who gets the credit." He explained that Drexel gave no interviews, kept no diaries, held no public offices, and destroyed most of his personal papers. By nurturing Pierpont Morgan's self-confidence and allowing him to become the public face for the firm, Drexel was able to avoid attention and, instead, tend to his extended family. When Rottenberg compiled all of these rhetorical strategies into his book, he was able to construct a very effective, cohesive and persuasive argument that Drexel was indeed the man who made Wall street.

Summary: This part of the book dealt specifically with the transactions that Drexel made which established him as "A First-Class Business Man." Not only did the author mention the transactions that occurred, he went into a detailed description of why this transaction was genius and how it helped to establish Anthony as a premier financier. Towards the end of the section, the author finally introduced Morgan, the man who is credited with JP Morgan and the making of Wallstreet. In the section that I read, the author discussed the long history of success in the Morgan family and how that success helped to introduce the young Morgan to the established Anthony J. Drexel.

Rhetorical Devices:
The rhetorical devices employed in these sections were similar to those of the first section. The author still presents this story in a process analysis format. It began with Anthony J. Drexel's rise to prominence and ended with the introduction of Pierpont Morgan. This sequential telling of events makes the book easier to follow and allows the writer to write in a cause/effect manner. Rottenberg seems to be a huge fanatic of the notion that every thing happens for a reason, since he presents the causes for just about everything that has happened. He attempts to explain Drexel's actions by alluding to his childhood experiences and with his father. This gives the reader more insight into the character of Anthony J. Drexel. However, while the author does provide possible explanations for Drexel's actions, he maintains an objective point of view. Rottenberg recounts the events in a matter-of-fact tone, offering little to none of his own opinions of the character. In this manner he allows the reader to create their own opinion of Drexel, unhampered by a biased recounting of history. Despite the fact that this book deals with financing, Rottenberg uses little jargon in the book. In this way he makes the novel accessible for all audiences, not just those who have prior background in economics. Nevertheless, after reading certain parts of this book, readers walk away with a better understanding of how ludicrous investing and becoming a financier is. Rottenberg also establishes his own credibility throughout this piece. In his narration of Drexel's life, he integrates quotes from Drexel, Morgan, and many other people who were contemporaries of the two. He also uses facts and figures when he refers to certain investments that Drexel made. The fact that he included this implies that he is quite knowledgeable about both financing and the  Anthony J. Drexel. These two aspects of Rottenberg's writing work synonymously to give credence to the author.

Summary: "This isn't about what LeBron James has done, or hasn't done. This is about the difference between the expectations others may have of him versus the expectations he has of himself. What should he do? The answer is a question.

• Author: This commercial was created by NIKE

Context/Purpose: (Causal) This video was created in response to the growing hatred of Lebron after he decided to join the heat. I think that NIKE was afraid that Lebron's marketability would drop due to this decision. To prevent this from occurring, they created this video not for the purpose of selling a product, but to sell a person, and defend Lebron's actions.
Audience: Those familiar with basketball and the Miami Heat's recent signing of Lebron James.
Rhetorical Devices: This video utilizes multiple rhetorical devices. One of these devices put to use was the allusion. In fact the video makes many allusions. In the Miami Vice segment of the film, the actor alludes to the Miami Heat, the basketball team Lebron was signed by. They also made an allusion to Michael Jordan when the poet said "Or should I rise." This phrase goes back to Michael Jordan's days as an athlete and as a prominent spokesperson of the Nike franchise. In one of his commercials they made use of this saying several times. Additionally, the author alluded to Lebron's younger days. When Lebron says "Or should I remind that I've done this before,"  he was referring to the fact that he and his friends switched high schools in order to give them a better chance of winning the state title. The makers of this commercial also used the repetition of "What Should I do?," and anaphora in order to appeal to the logic of readers. In this video he attempted to answer the question of "what should I do?" and brought up various possible solutions, all of which were ludicrous. He begun each ludicrous idea with a variation of "Or should I?" By suggesting these solutions he illustrated that it was impossible to please everyone, and why should he, as an athlete he should only have to please himself. This reasoning is what made the commercial so effective. Essentially, it questioned why he should be hated because he made a decision that made him happy despite the fact that he did not consider the feelings of the fans. Any ordinary person would understand that he has the right to please himself.