$700 Billion Bail-out Plan, Pelosi Argument

The federal government have been working on passing a bill that would possibly give a $700 billion bail-out for the banks and credit companies that have been struggling due to the countries economic recession. Of course, the taxpayers are worried, so the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi wants to make sure that the they don't look at the payout the wrong way. "People have to know that this isn't about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around," she says. Her argument is mostly based off of pathos, for she is trying to convince the taxpayers that they should not fear the fact that they may have to pay more money. She is trying to convince them that even though they will have to pay more taxes, the money will be returned to them in the form of economic improvement for the entire country. Of course, Pelosi stresses the fact that the economy of the country will improve, skirting around the fact that taxes will increase and saying that in the future, we will be better off. She uses ethos by using her position as the leader of congress to have people listen to her. As long as she can convince a majority of congress to vote for the bill, her job is accomplished. I think that she has a good argument, for her emotional appeal for the future security of the taxpayers money is addressing the primary concern of many people. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes

Who Do You Turn To?

Our unit on perilous times has made me look at the dire economic and war related struggles of our country and ask, who does the public turn to in a period of trouble? Do they always look to their current leader, or do they toss him/her away? Our current president has seen his fair share of perilous times, but it is interesting to look at the different reactions of the public depending on the type of situation.

Right after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centers president Bush's approval ratings had gone through the roof. The country looked to their leader and followed his very word, condemning those responsible for the attacks and following the president to war. The same war that many people supported then is still going on, but now the outlook has changed. The country has fallen into an economic slump, and the general consensus is that we are on the wrong track. The same leader that was supported so fervently back in 2001 is now looked upon with distrust and anger by significant percentage of the population. Why is it that in certain times of peril, a country will support its leader, and in others, they will push him away?

I think that the answer lies in the question of responsibility. When the cause of the trouble at hand comes from an outside factor, the country pools together and fights it. They turn to their leader to direct them into the unknown and deal with those who are responsible for the trouble that was caused. On the other hand, when the problem is internal, and the country feels like it is an internal factor that is causing the problem, they will turn on each other and their leader, causing a split instead of a union. While both perilous times, the two situations either unite or divide a group.

In the 2004 presidential elections, President Bush, who led us into the Iraq war was reinstated to finish the job. In the course of American history, no President that started a war was voted out of their second term. This goes back to the idea that external factors will create a tendency for Americans to look to their president for help. Now, however, few people are looking to Bush to help them with our economic slump, they don't rally together to solve the situation for they know that the troubles have less to do with factors outside the country as their own leadership.
At one time, he is seen as a valiant leader in a time of war, and another he is looked upon with contempt. One cannot say that in perilous times a country will always look to it's leader because it is completely dependent on the situation. If the leader is at all blamed for the trouble at hand, as opposed to an enemy unseen by the public, he is not given the chance to right his wrongs. The public will look for someone else to take his place.

Lipstick on a pig?

Political uproar broke out last week when the Democratic presidential nomination Barack Obama used the expression, "you can put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig" in reference to the McCain/Palin claim that they will bring change to Washington. Within hours McCain had accused Obama of slamming his vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. This immediately reminded me of the unit in class where we discussed how historians will choose to take certain pieces of evidence and omit others to distort the original message. While it is true that he said, "you can put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig", and that on its own it could seem that it is in fact a slam, but it is important to look at the context. He wasn't talking about Sarah Palin, he was talking about the so called change that McCain wants to bring. The passage actually went like this

"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

It is a prime example of information being manipulated to convince your audience what you want them to think. The most ironic part of the situation is that last year, in reference to Hilary Clinton's plan for a new healthcare system, McCain used roughly the same line. He said "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig.". Why is it ok for McCain to say it, but it is a political slam when Obama says it? It isn't. The politician has the same responsibilities as a historian not to distort the truth. Regardless of the moral responsibilities, is it constitutionally legal to use this type of campaigning, with advertisements distorting images of the other candidates, and taking their speeches and comments out of context?

First Post

Hey, this is the first post for my blog