E-Portfolio

E-Portfolio of Keith McFarland

This year has been a growth year for me. Through all classes in college, I've learned just how different life is. Probably the best attribute that I have gained is that I begun to wain off procrastination. I certainly still do it, but on the last day, I may only have to do add 2-3 pages on that ten page paper rather than having the whole thing to do. It has been a process forced upon me by the nature of college.
It is the time put in at night, after class that I really learn everything. If school were a painting, class would be the pencil outlining the work and going to the library at night would be the color added to the artwork. Further, unlike in high school where I was usually secluded to my room for homework, at college I am able to go to the library and through the year I have learned that where I am really does help me learn. I have learned a lot through college, including the best way for me to learn which is possibly the most valuable. Everyone learns differently and I am thankful that I have found the best method for me.
My favorite thing about college is the manner that classes operate. Where as in high school, classes are general and often set out for you to take, in college I can take classes with a much more specific concentration. I have learned so many detailed things through my different classes and since I can pick my classes, I have more attentive since the subjects are ones that interest me. I learned that this is why you pick a carrear that you could see yourself doing for the rest of your life rather than the one that gives you the most money. I want to do what interests me, like the way college courses work so that I can enjoy and take pride in my work. I don't want to have a hard time waking up to go to work. I want to be motivated and excel in my work place.

Commercial Ingenuity

 

The effort that went into this thirty second commercial goes to demonstrate how focused companies are on being creative. Every ping pong ball needs to be placed in the exact right order, on the right string and then the amount of air must be universal across the whole "shoe" so that it is even throughout. Engineering is becoming a part of advertising for companies. The point of the commercial is to show off the lightweight of the shoe. The show floats in the air. After seeing the commercial, I couldn't help, but look at the shoes on Asics website. I am now considering buying a pair of them. So the commercial was very effective in regard to achieving their goal.

In the YouTube generation, advertising has changed. Instead of companies marketing their goods on standard television and trying to make the commercials funny or featuring a celebrity, they instead put their advertisements on YouTube in the hopes that the videos will become a viral hit. These companies look to market their, in this case, shoes by doing something amazing quirky, something that has never been seen before. We can watch the commercial on something like YouTube and then click a link provided in the description and instantly buy whatever was in the commercial. YouTube is like a new form of eBay connecting the buyers and sellers. It has changed the way companies market, sell, and how they advertise.

Rhetorically, companies focus less on emphasizing how good their product is or why it is better than their competition. Instead, the companies want to just show something new and cool to entice people to thinking that their product is good. Companies have always used celebrities to show that their product is cool. Now, it is about how grand and witty a company can do an advertisement that truly shows how cool their product is.

The Most Unusual Argument

This came across my FaceBook news feed. I watched and just thought, "Wow." Rep. Hale takes something that is universally accepted as illegal, drunk driving, and tries to rationalize that it should be legal out of economic necessity. 

His argument is based on that in small towns, there are no buses, taxis or other means of transportation besides their own vehicles. This leaves few options to the person wanting to go and drink. They must choose between going and drinking, but then driving home or not going at all. That part about "not going at all" puts at risk revenue that these drinking establishments could be making. These thoughts lead Rep. Hale to state that in order for these drinking establishments to stay open, which are the center of these towns, people must be afforded the leeway to drive drunk. It is a truly unique and wild idea to think about. In effect, the lives of people are being put at risk for people to get drunk and "build community." It's not an argument that we hear made every day.

I strongly disagree with the belief of Rep. Hale. There are two kinds of laws, laws that are naturally illegal (rape, murder, robbery) and law that make things illegal because we say that they should be illegal (drinking underage, drugs, etc.). I'd think that driving drunk would fall somewhere between those two because it is needlessly putting lives (or as Hale says, to build community). It is inherent in our society that when people's lives are put at risk like that, there has to be some punishment. If someone kills another person while driving drunk if it were legal to drive after drinking, what would the punishment be? Would it be just like killing someone in a normal car accident? It starts to become more ridiculous as questions like this start to be asked.

Obama on the Peace Prize

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/23/obama_i_will_be_keeping_my_nobel_peace_prize.html

This is one of my favorite things that the President has ever said. Everyone knows that President Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize and there was much publicity on the award. That award has come under criticism because of the US becoming involved in Libya and using our military significantly in three places at the moment. I do not believe that this movement warrants him having to return an award that he never asked for, but instead was given.

As President Obama pointed out, the Nobel committee was aware that he was the leader of the world's strongest military, but at the same was hoping for peace. "I am accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also someone who aspires to peace," said our President. I think that this is something worth noting in his argument about returning the award. The President, as the leader of an entire nation, is unable to take a universal pacifist front because that opens our country up to attack. Other candidates for the award were people who did not really have responsibility or a role to fill, but were instead just activists in their countries. They are one dimensional, but Obama is unable to be similar. It was important that Obama point that out while making his case to keep his award. 


Also, as he stated, going into Libya hopes to serve the purpose of allowing the people to live their life freely and without an oppressive government. Freedom is a major part of peace since oppression fosters violence. You wouldn't cry out that rebels trying to overthrow an oppressive leader are acting out of line. So there should not be any criticism placed on a person who decides to subtly support them and their right to hope to be more than a means of one person acquiring more power and wealth.

By Request of Marvin

This week we have featured an alternative side. Many of my other blog entries have focused on Democrats saying dumb things or twisting this irrationally. This time however it is different on two fronts. The first is that this one isn't so much a demonstration of dumb things. Instead it is similar to what we talked about in class today. Also, despite being Fox News, the point is from the Democratic side where the Republics (Sean Hannity) is serving as the ass by making it difficult for the Democratic representative to make his point.

The video is at the bottom of the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/michele-bachmann-anthony-weiner_n_836967.html

The video is entertaining and comical at parts as you watch it, but at the beginning you can already tell how the conversation will go. Similar to Mr. Bashir in class today, Sean Hannity made it difficult for Rep. Weiner to state his point. Instead of waiting for Rep. Weiner to finish his statement and then providing his rebuttal, he takes the immature stance. Every time that Rep. Weiner says something, Sean Hannity instantly interrupted and then began to state in someway how he disagreed or how Weiner was wrong and views contorted.

Then the things got even more bizarre, but more entertaining as the two representatives began to get off topic and instead of talking about the topic at hand, they began to spar over personal issues. While this is entertaining and as the verbal boxing takes places, viewers are able to pick sides the debated becomes more entertaining. That being said, this isn't the good kind of political conversation that helps pass bills and build a nation. For that reason, I think that this is very good entertainment, but a sort of poor political show. A lot of shows that are supposed to be political are not really political, but instead an entertainment circus.

He Looks Like a Car Bomber

When I saw this, I thought, "Yes, exactly what I was looking for." It follows along what I've been blogging about thus far which is mainly how people take standard arguments and then bring in ridiculous examples or reasons to try and get people to side with them. It is usually a Democrat acting silly because it's hard for me to hate on the people I support, its only normal. I know that it is done by the Republican contingent just as much as the Democratic, but by writing about the Democrats, it is my own piece of rhetoric.

Chris Matthews started his argument very well and I was even thinking, "Shit, I don't want this guy to become the next president." From there it kind of got a little ridiculous for me. Matthews took a very good rhetorical argument and then took and extreme view which changed my thoughts to being against him again. By going from a moderate and persuasive argument, Matthews drew on people who are more middle of the road that watch his show. Once that turned and he referenced that Gingrich looked a like a car bomber, I had my reactions. First, Newt Gingrich does not look like a car bomber. He looks like a nice southern pastor or something of the sort. Also, I am not entirely sure what a car bomber looks like so his argument has less value in that regard too. I know what the Unabomber looked like but Newt looks was more stable than the Unabomber looked. He needs to connect his audience to something that we can all recognize and draw a legitimate comparison to. While his statement may infuse people far to the left (certainly a large part of his viewers), it left fault in a sound argument. I like to believe that arguments made are true and possible and based on fact. Arguments based on fact, but with ridiculous statements just doesn't draw me in as much.

Donald Rumsfeld and the Iraq War

Rumsfeld Link

The Iraq War has obviously been a controversial topic since it started and has loomed over much of the Bush Administration. The Iraq War almost allowed John Kerry to beat President Bush in the 2004 election. The motives and management of the war have been questioned. Most of the administration under Bush is no longer in office, so it has become easier for them to speak on certain subjects. Should they? It seems like controversy would certainly occur no matter how they answer the question.

We talked about this in some way when we talked about people who voted one way and then decide that they were wrong and they change their view. I think it is certainly all right for a person to change their view and I even believe it to be very noble of them since they are in fact admitting that they were wrong. By stating that they are wrong, especially as a politician, they admit that were doing something that would adversely affect the people they represent. That being said, I think that someone like Donald Rumsfeld should not answer questions about Iraq because that affected so many people. It is also something that our country is still involved with currently. The context of the situation greatly affects how it should be handled. If Rumsfeld were to say that Iraq was a mistake then people may sue the government for wrongful death. It is a situation where there shouldn't be comments made until a lot of the smoke has passed over. I think it is similar to Robert McNamara. He didn't really talk about the Vietnam War until "The Fog of War" which came out in 2003. As a private citizen, I can admit that I am wrong and it is all right because not too many people would be affected, but in Rumsfeld case, he is almost protecting people and their emotions by trying to not talk about the situation.