ARCS, Chapter 3

The issue of the acceptability and legality of abortion continues to pervade the effectiveness of discourse in the American political system. As ARCS discusses, the issue lies in the lack of statsis within the arguments conducted by officials that continue to discuss the issue.

As the book lays out the points made throughout each argument, it becomes clear that politicians and activists are not discussing the same issue. As it states on page 81:

"Stasis Achieved: Rhetors Can Now Agree to Disagree
A. Abortion is murder
B. Abortion is not murder."

The issue here is that the argument made by opposing political parties looks a little more like this:

"A. Abortion is murder
B. Women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies, including terminating a pregnancy."

The result is two arguments that are not in stasis; as ARCS demonstrates, no one in the pro-choice camp will argue, "Abortion is not murder," and no pro-life camp will state, "a woman has no right to decide what happens to her body." Since the parties will not argue the same facts, it can be stated that no solution will ever come to this argument; no two of the same argument will be made, and people will always disagree.

Ultimately, the issue with lack of stasis in this argument lies with the inability of either party to accept that "agreeing to disagree" is an acceptable compromise. This is additionally problematic, since a lack of definitive conclusion on the issue makes it difficult to formulate policy to regulate abortion in the first place.

ARCS, Chapter 2

The chapter mentions global warming as an effective example of kairos at work; I couldn't agree more. No one was a greater champion of global warming than Al Gore, whose 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth won two academy awards that year.

His efforts would have went largely unnoticed if he decided to release such a documentary a decade earlier; but the natural disasters of the years leading up to its release found a more receptive audience. The 2004 disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow detailed a fantastical account of the effects of global warming on the world, and not only drew attention to the issue of global warming, but became the highest grossing movie ever filmed in Canada. Additionally, between the tsunami in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the viewing public became open to the idea of global warming as a cause of natural disasters around the world--this lead to an increased awareness in America and other developed nations, as well as lifestyle changes to match. This is a perfect example of a successful use of kairos. Al Gore's message continues to flourish, while perhaps in an earlier time, he would be dismissed as a fanatic (not that some have not tried to do so, a la George Bush).

Al Gore communicates the immediacy of the issue by choosing to detail exactly where the world will be in as soon as 50 years. Due to important documents, such as the Kyoto Protocol, remaining unsigned,  pollution will continue to skyrocket, and glaciers in several national parks will cease to exist in as soon as ten years.

ARCS mentions the consideration of interests, which is one of the most important factors working against the Kyoto Protocol at the moment. Republicans and corporations represent a particular interest; since cutting back on emissions will affect the cost-effectiveness of several businesses, and limit several elements of "free-market." Al Gore, as a Democrat, represents the interest of his party and of his personal views, with many viewers interpreting his delivery on the subject to be a power-play for future attempts at office. I represent a certain interest in deciding to choosing to write about this topic, and my subtle bias against the views of corporations reveals my inclination toward Leftist politics. Each individual interest affects the arguments we make for or against Al Gore's film, and other such topics of controversy in America. 

ARCS, Chapter 1

I am absolutely thrilled to see Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students (ARCS) address the fact that modern media fails facilitate proper discourse between politicians anymore. I actually find myself amazed that I was unaware that Jon Stewart is primarily responsible for the downfall of Crossfire, and I can't help but cheer when I watch his response to the empty words of the hosts on the now-deceased show.

     

Jon Stewart kicks some ass on Crossfire

A large part of the modern American media is guilty of the same sins. The Fox Network manages to deliver, in large part, a slew of conservative "discourse" (I say this loosely), without succeeding in actually saying anything at all. There is no real news network that actually manages to state clear facts and allow for productive debate--no one to hold actual politicians accountable by asking tough questions to actually keep the politicians "in shape." Jon Stewart demonstrates what should be happening in interviews--deviation from a script, allowing those in question to actually have to demonstrate ability.

I am also in absolute agreement with the section of ARCS that discusses the ownership of opinion. The linking of opinions to identity continues to undermine effective political conversation by reducing thoughts and beliefs to a simple generalization. If I were to express my frustration with American media, coupled with my irritation that it withholds vital information, I might be dismissed as "another conspiracy theorist," and my words no longer hold validity with a listener.

I cannot imagine a time in which logical assertion is not valued as an effective way to make an argument. Factual information and testimonies are valued not only in rhetorical exchange, but in our justice system as a means to establish guilt or innocence. The frustration that comes with arguing with a person that insists on avoiding facts is absolutely mind-blowing, and pondering that as a standard for discourse is supremely entertaining.

Patiently Waiting

My textbook has not yet arrived, and it's only a matter of time before I fall desperately behind.

This is my desperate plea to the gods of textbook delivery: "PLEASE, HURRY UP."