Guest Blogger: Alex Skrukrud

Writers use a variety of rhetorical and persuasive devices to establish their point. Rhetorical techniques are used by authors to convey a listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective. Examples of these techniques are metaphors, ironies, and compare/contrast. In Rhetoric, speakers use Ethos, Pathos, and Logos to help persuade the audience. Ethos, which is the appeal to character, Logos, which is the logic of the argument, and Pathos, the emotional appeal, are used along with many persuasive devices to help the speaker persuade the reader/listener to see both sides of the argument. The structure that one should use for an argument is the Aristotelian triangle, which describes the interaction among subject, speaker, and audience. Writer should consider this triangle when they prepare to write. They should get their subject and then know the audience that they are writing for. That goes the same for a speaker. They should consider what the topic is they are speaking about and who the audience is that they will be telling the speech to. Along with this structure, the writer and speaker should consider the language that they should use to suite the audience. Someone giving a speech about world hunger should not talk as though they are talking to children, and someone giving a speech for elementary school students should not use sophisticated words that they will not understand. Machiavelli, in the Prince used sophisticated language and a good structure to get his point across. Most likely the point would have been different if he had written it so that toddlers could read it. He made sure that he knew his audience, a prince, and he had a clear subject to write about. Writers and speakers should consider their audience and should follow a clear subject to persuade people to their ideas, along with using rhetorical and persuasive devices.

Guest Blogger: Hamsitha Dontamsetty

As we begin studying The Declaration of Independence and the ideas that served as the catalyst for the colonists’ rebellion, I want to once again consider the philosophy of Locke. As we move forward, I think it is valuable to be able to connect our completed unit to the one we are about to explore in order to maintain coherency in our studies. To do this, I think we should understand how Locke connects to the colonists’ rebellion against the British Empire. The colonists began planning the declaration of independence after years of tyrant rule under the mother country, Britain. At the end of the French and Indian War, the British imposed taxes on the colonists to recover funds they lost during the war; this put the colonists at a disadvantage while the mother country benefited completely. Britain also levied unfair taxes on tea, glass, and paper. When the colonists retaliated by dumping caskets of tea in Boston Harbor with the Boston Tea Party, Britain placed restrictions on importing and exporting goods out of Boston Harbor. These events eventually led to the First Continental Congress, which was a meeting of 12 delegates from the thirteen colonial states who discussed plans of rebellion, and the Declaration of Independence. While these are the events that helped start the rebellion, it was the philosophy of Locke that inspired the Founding Fathers to declare independence. Locke said that if a government was treating its citizens unjustly, then the people have a duty, a responsibility, to rebel against the tyrant government and bring forth a better institution in its place. Locke felt that people must give up their individual power in order to be protected by a secure, just government, and if the government failed in its duty to safeguard its citizens, then the citizens have a right to rebel. This is exactly how the colonists felt when they suffered under the tyrant rule of the British Empire. The colonists felt that the British government was only benefiting the mother country, and that it wasn’t keeping the colonists’ best interests in mind. So, with the philosophy of Locke supporting them and the anger of being treated unjustly raging inside them, the colonists declared independence and instituted a government they felt would serve them better than the British Empire. In this way, the greatest democracy the world has ever witnessed was born.

Guest Blogger: Becca Rose

After reading "The World is Flat" and discussing in a Socratic seminar in class, I was reminded of the common belief that Americans are, well, stupid and falling behind in the global race to be the best. I understand why the majority believes this because there are so many statistics that "prove" these rumors. But, if I've learned anything in AP Stats it's that most statistics and wrong, twisted, and bias. Friedman discusses the fall in the percentage of women entering the science and mathematic subjects as if it's a bad choice on their part that will result in a lacking United States. What Friedman doesn't discuss is what those women went into instead. I highly doubt they became waitresses and housemoms just because they didn't go into math or science. There's a nationwide panic about the United States rankings in math and science compared to other countries. First of all we know that the United States does not have as many people as many of these countries and second of all we know that most of those countries that are "beating" us only use the test scores of their test scores, leaving a majority of their people more uneducated than some of our worst students. If these tests were taken by everyone in every country I believe there would be a difference in results. But even if there wasn't, I ask when did math and science become the only professions in the world and why are they the only important subjects? I understand that they're the only subjects that the world can compare on since they're the only subjects that are the same everywhere, but those subjects have somehow managed to control the academic world and the way that we view the intelligence of anyone. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Decker may not be exceptionally good at science or math, but aren't they still intelligent? Don't they still have a good education and the knowledge to teach others? So what if the majority of our people aren't math and science geniuses. That shows me that we realize there's more to education than two subjects and that not every person is good at the same things. To me, our variety of focuses and our freedom to choose our futures based on what we're passionate about is more valuable that a million math and science geniuses. Countries don't run off of math and science alone, I wish everyone would stop acting that way.

Guest Blogger: Shannon Brown

The writers of the Declaration of Independence effectively utilize the three appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) in their document in order to force their viewpoint into the minds of all who read it. They open with the establishment of ethos, stating that “respect…requires” that the reasoning behind any revolt be named. Because the writers later name their grievances, this implies that they possess the needed respect to legitimize their writing of the Declaration. The credibility and ethical standing of the writers is therefore confirmed. They go on to state that “Governments…should not be changed for light and transient causes.” This implies that the writers are not acting on a slight discomfort in their revolt against Britain. Britain has committed severe transgressions during its rule of the colonies. This further establishes the writers’ credibility by emphasizing their caution and consideration. The writers conclude with an appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the world.” They argue that God is in agreement with their terms. In this way, the writers obtain credibility yet again. Logos is also used heavily throughout the Declaration, as in the introduction when “self-evident” truths are stated. The writers, through a series of logical syllogisms, establish their right to overthrow Britain’s hold on the colonies. This logical reasoning strongly supports the colonists’ decision to revolt. The body of the Declaration also exemplifies the writers’ logic. They thoroughly describe the King’s tyranny and explain why it justifies rebellion. Their logic is sound. Their argument is strewn with elements of pathos, as well. Throughout the body, emotionally powerful diction is used in order to strengthen their already sound appeals to logos and ethos. By naming the king a “tyrant” and his decisions “invasions on the rights of the people” as opposed to more delicate labels, the king and his decisions now have much more negative and emotionally charged connotations. This usage of pathos not only gains support from fellow colonists, but also forces their oppressors to view themselves in an unfavorable light. Ethos, logos, and pathos are as indispensible in swaying another’s viewpoint today as they were during the writing of the Declaration of Independence. Not just one or two, but all three appeals must be heavily employed in political speeches of the present day in order to shift society’s deeply set paradigms in favor of a particular political viewpoint.

Guest Blogger: Amy McMeeking

While reading Rousseau, I started out very much in favor of what he was saying, but by the end of our excerpt, I was thinking, “What? No, that’s completely wrong.” However, I think a lot of my reaction was caused by how well his ideas agreed with modern viewpoints. For example, I really liked his point that while the general will “tends to the public advantage…it is often deceived.” There are many instances of this throughout history. The concepts of racial and gender equality used to be widely disregarded—at the turn of the 20th century, even many women didn’t want the right to vote. Nowadays it’s clear that people back then had false ideas because that was how they had been brought up. As the reading progressed, Rousseau’s claims became more and more novel to me. He says that the most vital part of a state is the legislative rather than executive power. This makes sense, but I found it interesting in comparison with our tendency to focus on the President, even though he doesn’t have that much power to personally enact policies. Where I started having problems was when Rousseau asserts that different forms of government are better for different states: large, warm, rich countries should be monarchies; medium-sized, temperate climate, averagely wealthy countries should be aristocracies; and small, cold, poor countries should be democracies. Immediately after reading this, I started thinking of the many, many nations that do not fit this model at all yet are successful. I reacted similarly to his claim that the only measure of a government’s success is how much the population is increasing. Wealthy nations today have low or negative growth rates, and how can he have no preference for a type of government? A lot of thinking led me to the conclusion that I have trouble accepting some of Rousseau’s theories because he operated on completely different paradigms than I do. In the context of his time, what he said was much more reasonable than it is today. In the late 1700’s, an expanding population meant a country could feed its people. Virtually every country was a monarchy, whereas today the ideal of democracy is practically worshipped. What I took away from the reading, in addition to Rousseau’s ideas, was that it’s important to view everyone’s argument in the correct context in order to completely understand it.

Guest Blogger: Kyle Andrews

Machiavelli's Relevance to Revolt in Libya

Even though it was written about 500 years ago, Machiavelli's The Prince is relevant to leaders making decisions in the world today. For example, for over four decades in Libya, unhappy Libyans have been living under the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi. After more than four decades, the Libyans have lead a revolt against their dictator and are currently in the process of setting up a new government. Machiavelli advised that a weak state should not form an alliance with a more powerful state, because forming an alliance with a more powerful state obligates the weaker state. The weaker state is in debt to the more powerful state for their help. The United States, in recent months, has been providing air support to the Libyan rebels on the ground. This act of the United States is tactically smart. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa. Once Libya establishes a new government, Libya will be in debt to the United States for their services. The new government of Libya will most likely use their abundant resources of oil to repay the United States. From the world's stand point, the U.S. supporting the country of Libya is good press, but internally, government leaders see the situation as a way to benefit from the Libyan government. Historically, the United States government has never acts out of kindness to other countries, but instead has acted with the expectation to benefit from struggling countries - particularly countries that have large oil reserves. Coincidence?

Guest Blogger: Laura Herbers

What makes a leader? According to Aristotle in his work Politics, Book 4, the best kind of class to lead the government is the middle class. This being because, to his claim, the upper and lower classes will be unwilling to serve one another because they mistrust each other. Therefore, the middle class is being called the arbiter by Aristotle, and hence, the one who is trusted. When speaking not necessarily of classes, but leaders, the message established by Aristotle holds true, but in different form. Those who actively seek out leadership, making claims that they are the best for the job and are superior to others, while it may seem that this confidence is something to be desired, this attitude is similar to that of the upper class as written by Aristotle. He claims that a country ruled by an upper class will assume forms similar to that of an oligarchy. Time has tested that those who assume a leadership position, but do it with a big head and overconfident attitude, will ultimately fail. An example of this being, Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Hitler and the Aryan race being the oligarchs. Though at first well received and trusted in, Germany obviously fell, and Hitler came down literally and figuratively through self destruction. The lower class will symbolize those who both fear and dislike power. These type of people will clearly not be adept to power since the pure meekness of their personalities will not allow them to properly lead a group. So this leaves the middle class, or in the case of individuals, a person who neither loves nor fears power. Someone doesn’t truly become a leader simply because they are thrown into a position of leadership, but they have to be accepted by those around them. Those who do not seek leadership, but also do not run away from it, will be the most likely to be appreciated and admired by others because they will not feel annoyed and egos, but will also not look down upon someone who they believe isn’t strong enough to lead. The middle of the road leaders clearly have been and are the most successful because they will be able to think more objectively and are in a far better position to be naturally adept to a leadership position. Aristotle’s advice for leadership, holding true for social/economic classes, also hold true for individuals who are considered to be a leader.

Guest Blogger: Katie Tetzloff

With the beginning of a new school year, we have already begun so many interesting topics in both English and Government. Although the main portion of our Summer reading was The Prince by Machiavelli, we haven't yet discussed his outstanding brilliance. Instead we have been focusing on the great philosophers of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. With these men we have learned the inititives of government, what a paradigm really is, and how they are all connected.
Beginning with Hobbes, we read Chapter 13 from Leviathan in which he explains his opinions on the State of Nature and the Social Contract Theory. Hobbes does not think highly of mankind, describing us as “solitary, poor, nasty, [and] brutish.” He truly believes that in the State of Nature, complete anarchy, that every man is against every man in a continual war. Since self-preservation is instinctive, we are selfish creatures, unable to live in peace.Eventually, however, men rise together to form a commonwealth when Nature has become too intolerable; they realize that joinging together is really in each of their best interests. This commonwealth will only last if there is a mutual agreement to enter into a government, and if there is an authoritative power that is strong enough to enforce it. Because this is formed by a collective decision, they are prohibited to rebel against the governing body because, in reality, they are only rebelling against themselves.
John Locke, on the other hand, believes that man's State of Nature has complete liberty where each man may conduct his own life how he wishes. Even so, men will submit themselves to a commonwealth for the same reason as mentioned above: an arrangement that government will be beneficial to all of them. Locke, differing from Hobbes, then believes that rebellion is justifiable if this government turns into tyranny.
As we see from these two philosophers, government is a system that sets and enforces rules for a nation. Although there are multiple types of governments, all of them serve to keep order, regulate the economy, and provide defense.
Along with government comes paradigms: A paradigm sets rules for success. My governmental paradigm says that there must be a system similar to the US checks and balances so that no individual controls all the power. Hobbes' paradigm could be that the State of Nature is never peaceful. When a new idea is offered, there is a paradigm shift, and everyone gets put on a level playing field. Those who accept this change are called paradigm pioneers. This relates to Friedman's The World Is Flat and how America has a bad case of the Paradigm Effect and Paralysis: we fail to realize and accept that other countries could take the global lead. Since we have had success for so long, we do not realize that as things change, our method for success must change with it.

Philosopher Letter

Use the following readings to construct your letter.
 
Hobbes A Student’s History of Philosophy
Hobbes Ch. 13 of Leviathan
Locke Second Treatise excerpts
Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War
Aristotle Politics
Plato Allegory of the Cave
Machiavelli The Prince
Rousseau The Social Contract
Imagine you have found an old letter tucked away in your attic that was from
a) a philosopher to a leader b) a leader to a philosopher.
After reading the letter, you are to write an abstract that you will turn in to me. (250 words)

“An abstract is a self-contained, short, and powerful statement that describes a larger work. Components vary according to discipline; an abstract of a social science or scientific work may contain the scope, purpose, results, and contents of the work. An abstract of a humanities work may contain the thesis, background, and conclusion of the larger work. An abstract does not evaluate the work being abstracted. While it contains key words found in the larger work, the abstract is an original document rather than an excerpted passage.” (UNC Writing Center)

Abstracts allow readers who may be interested in a longer work to quickly decide whether it is worth their time to read it.

Let me know if you have questions,
Mr. Thompson

Guest Blogger: Frank Peng

In Friedman’s book, The World Is Flat, he brings up a very valid point about America becoming too complacent in education. Though America trails many other countries, namely Asian countries, as Friedman pointed out, America has cut spending for education, relocating that cut money towards supporting our troops. Though it is money well spent, not sending our troops in the first place would provide our country with a plethora of funds that could be used to assist in raising the education level in the US. Also, states aren’t looking at the big picture. The legislature sees that their schools are above the national average and they get lax because they think that that’s good enough. It isn’t. We need to compete at the global level, not just the national level. In order to do that, education needs more funding. Not only that, but too much money is being allocated to bringing the undereducated up. The accelerated kids can’t be ignored either. Without funding accelerated programs, many of our most gifted children may not get the rigor they need to take their talents to the next level. The thought of closing the gap is somewhat misleading. Yes, it’s great to improve the scores of the undereducated, but holding back the overachievers isn’t the solution.

Tix in Door 9.14

Is Machiavelli's political paradigm valid in 2011? 3 sentences.

Period 6+7 Locke

Below find your class' interpretation of John Locke's text. Bring 1 or 2 questions to class for Monday or post them as comments.

A. All men have a right to life, liberty, and estate In a state of nature, he also has right to punish those that violate those rights, in a political or civil society however, he relinqueshes the power to punish and gives it to the government. This government must set and execute punishments for crimes committed both in the state(by its members) and those against the state (by outside forces).
logan adair...Katie johnson..josh frei...sophie goodner...suad Mahfouz
B. 95. Individually, people are free until they agree to be governed. 96. Multiple people are needed to form a community or government and for that entity to work cohesively, the consent of that majority is needed. 97. Once a social contract has been agreed upon it cannot be broken or else the power of the entity will be weakened.
Eddie Cabral, Eli Newberg, Brianna Axtell, Kristimari Kaiya, Daniel Klinkhammmer
C. Section 123-127
Man gives up his freedom if his property is to be protected. Man wants three things from the government: established law, a knowledgeable and indifferent judge, and the might to support the judges's decision. Man gives up their right to take matters into their own hands in order to let the government take care of it.

Frank Peng’s group
D. Section 128 to 131
One needs to be able to give up personal freedoms and allow yourself to be regulated by those laws for the greater good of society; one should also be prepared to assist the government in regulating those laws. Executives need to rule by standing laws, and those laws must be public.

From: Nicole Kraushaar, Evan Christiansan, Amy Chhunn, and Kaushik Ramesh
E. The majority has the power to remove officers and the laws they impose upon the people. They then can create a new government by mixing and matching forms of monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy untill the government meets the needs of the majority. By creating a government for the people, a legislative, a common wealth is created.
Alvin C., Nick F., Jonah M., Brenan A.

F. No one individual should have absolute arbitrary power over a group of people. To prevent this from occurring, society needs to hold each other accountable and be his/her own judge, interpreter, and executioner of his own rights.
Jacob Brewer’s group???

G. Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. Any government can be liable to tyranny when leaders put their own interests and desires in front of those of their people. Locke points out the contradiction that the same act may be committed by a man on the street as the government; however, citizens are expected to submit themselves to the government.
Liz rime, Meg Walters, Noelle bellows, Trisha deweerdt

John Locke in Your Words (periods 3+4)

Below find your class' paraphrasing of John Locke. Feel free to read and bring a question or 2 to class or post your question as a comment .

A. Section 87-89
In order for a civil society to exist, the community must be united and willing to give up some personal power to the government, which will establish laws that will protect life, freedom, and property; otherwise the community is in a state of nature. To become part of a commonwealth one must give up the prosecution power to the legislative and executive powers, who may take any means necessary.
Bryan Kotschevar, Becca Rose, Kelsey Hansen, Lekha Somashekara, Amy McMeeking, Leyla Budimlic
B. Sections 95-97

Men must be free and equal; they are subject to the change of government power. When people choose to come together as a community, they create a body called the majority. People, when part of the majority, have an obligation to follow its decisions as well as its leader.

Dylon Jamison, Alladin Budimlic, Kyle Andrews, Shannon Brown, Emily Dillhunt

C. Chapter IV, Sect 123-127

Although the state of nature has absolute freedom, men will join together in a commonwealth for the conservation and security of their lives, liberties, and estates. They will also form a government to establish common laws and punishments with a power to back them in order to prevent injustice.

Katie Tetzloff, Spencer Johnson, Ashely Sadauskis, Omar, Kjersten Savage

D. Sections 128-131



A man has two powers which include doing whatever he thinks he needs to do in order to keep his power, and the power to punish the crimes committed against law. Also, mankind is one community, makes up one society, and is distinct from all other creatures.
Matt Cyr, Jayden Schuster, Vishvesh Dave, Kristi Taraba, Hannah Church
E.
Once society has been established, government is a natural progression. Through common-wealth, people with common goals come together to form a government that will help them reach those goals.

Matt Broman, Emily Sadecki, Morgan McBride, Laurence Kuisle, Adrianne Curtis
F. Chapter IX

No one individual can have absolute power and the power of decisions should belong to the people. The laws created by those chosen to make them are absolute and there should be no negative influence about it. Power should only be used to preserve the property and wellbeing of the people.

Bekhtu S, Rahul M, Alyssa A, Darious J, Laura H

G. Chapter XVIII
Tyranny is the abuse of power for one's self-gratification to which no one has a right. Not only Monarchies, but any government (one or many people) is susceptible to tyranny. Just because you have the power to oppress your subjects does not give you the right to do so.

Matt Muroya, Missy Angus, Alex Skrukrud, Tram Nguyen, Hamsitha Dontamsett

APL/G 2011/12

Congratulations you made it! You have not only made it to your senior year but you have made it into Advanced Placement Government and Language. Save this site to your favorites and pay attention to it as this is where some vital info and assignments will be posted.

Have a great semester and experience in APL/G.
Mr. Decker and Mr. Thompson