Death Penalty Essays

I believe that Kroll's essay was much more persuasive, mostly due to the fact that it hits the reader with the pathos appeal like a sledgehammer. If the reader is already susceptible to this kind of appeal, they'll be drawn in hook, line, and sinker. Even if the reader isn't particularly susceptible to pathos, they'll still be able to feel sympathy towards Kroll's explanation and perspective on the events, as compared to Mencken's essay, which does not come off as a raw, emotional reading experience, but instead seems much more self-centered and dismissive. Kroll appears to be writing not only to appeal to the average person's sympathies, but also to those who have undergone the same experiences as him. With Mencken, he writes as though he's the only right one and everybody else is wrong. This is rather unpleasant to read, especially given the fact that he insults the intelligence of those against the death penalty in the first paragraph. Kroll caters more towards his reader's emotions and experiences, while Mencken just seems to be catering to his own opinions.

"Sixteen Military Wives" by The Decemberists (2004)

1.) What the song is literally talking about is sixteen military wives, five of which who have lost their husbands. It's also about celebrities with sordid lives and celebrities who are given awards by an academy of 18 people. There's also mention of fourteen cannibal kings, apparently eating the celebrities. 


2.) The theme of the song is that ignorance is bliss. The lyrics state that "Seventeen company men Out of which only twelve will make it back again Sergeant sends a letter to five Military wives, whose tears drip down through ten little eyes". If these military wives were never told of their husbands dying - thus being ignorant to the situation - they would not have been crying, and as such, would have been happier. Another lyric, "Fifteen celebrity minds
Leading their fifteen sordid wretched checkered lives", shows that if no one knew anything about these celebrity's lives, they would be spared having to listen to unpleasant and 'sordid' details, thus making them happy. 

"Race for the Prize" by The Flaming Lips (1999)

The theme of this song is that if someone dies trying to make a difference, it doesn't matter, they were insignificant. This melancholy is demonstrated by the lyrics, which state that the cure the two scientists are looking for "[is] so dangerous, but they're determined". This shows that despite the possibility of death, these men want to make a difference. It also says that "if it kills them, they're just humans", demonstrating that even if they do die, it's not a big deal - they're just humans, insignificant and unremarkable. This generally sad tone is reinforced by the instrumentation, which I think is in a minor key. The music sounds very sad and rather defeated, showing that if these men die, there would be no major impact. The general feel of the song is rather sad, but painfully true.

Patrick Henry Speech Fallacy

The line from his speech that commits a fallacy is this: Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?


This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. To put it in context, in this paragraph Patrick Henry is asking of the convention when will the colonies be strong enough to fight off such a powerful adversary as Great Britain. The sentence that I've used is suggesting that if the colonies don't do anything to fight back against Great Britain and simply continue telling themselves that they are too weak and will not win the fight, that everyone will inevitably, without argument, eventually become disarmed and have a British guard stationed in their house. This is, of course, not true, seeing as how if the colonies hadn't have fought back, there most likely would not be a complete disarming of everybody and there would not be a British guard in every house.


This speech is famous, of course, because it was what helped spur the colonists on to fight back against their oppressors, and we all know what that lead to. It's effective despite its fallacies because people simply see it as an incredibly persuasive piece and it has appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos, which adds to its persuasiveness just by covering a whole lot of ground. Plus, in this particular example, anyone who would have originally been listening to this speech would have been too startled by the thought of having a British guard in every house to notice that this line was a fallacy.

Duck & Cover

• Overt: Duck and cover when the atomic bomb strikes.
• Covert: If you don't duck and cover, you'll die.
• I think this was informational because there's no hidden message to it, it's just trying to keep people safe. It is persuasive in that it's trying to persuade people to duck and cover when the bomb hits, though there's some fallacy in that it used fear for its argument.

Destination: Earth

• Overt: The United States has the highest standard of living because it has oil and competition.
• Covert: Communists are backwards and have a lower standard of living because they don't have oil and aren't capitalist. America's better than them and Americans should support our oil-run capitalist society. If you don't, you're a communist.
• I know that's the overt message because the video outright states that and the oppressed Martians eagerly begin changing their society to match America's.
• I know that's the covert message because it's glaringly obvious that the oil companies who supported the cartoon want people to like the oil industry because it helps America be America. The Martians are also obviously meant to be communists.

Propaganda (WWII 1941-1945)

1.) The overt message is that if people eat less bread, American troops will be able to win the war.

2.) The covert message is that if you believe in the cause of U.S. troops and want them to win, you'll make the sacrifice of eating less bread in order to help them win, and if you don't, you're not a true American.

3.) It's propaganda because there is the obvious message that eating less bread equals victory and that it will benefit the troops, but the hidden message encourages loyalty to the American cause. The fact that one encourages simple victory and the other encourages loyalty shows this is propaganda.

"Clampdown" by the Clash (1979)

1.) This song's about how the government/those in power are brutal and are corrupting the youth, and as such this government should be brought down. This is shown by lyrics such as "We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers", which shows that the government wants to teach 'twisted speech', as in lies and propaganda, to young people in order to get them to do as they want - in this case, submit to 'the clampdown'. The lyric "Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall" shows that the singer wants the youth to aid in bringing down the government, because apparently that's what governments are supposed to do, since he says that 'government (is) to fall', showing that he thinks governments are meant to fall. By saying "let fury have the hour, anger can be power" the singer is suggesting that people get angry at the government, because rage can give people power, in this case, power to overthrow the government.

2.) The music is very rhythmic and jarring, which sounds almost militaristic. This could be used to show that the government is militaristic and wants everybody to fit nice and neatly together into their 'clampdown', or it could be sort of a rally cry for the youth to band together (like an army) and be in time as they bring down the government.

3.) This song shows persuasion, because the singer is urging rebellion. It's not propaganda because there's no hidden message, it's obvious what the singer wants you to do. There's no underlying message to it that one has to look closer to understand, like with propaganda. It's all very straightforward.

Propaganda, Persuasion, Rhetoric and Argument (D, E, F)

Four quotes:

#279

#285

#300

#312

My quote of choice is #312, which states: There are two major forms of lying: concealment, leaving out true information; and falsification, or presenting false information as if it were true.

This has to do with propaganda in the sense that propaganda can be a lie. For example, if I were composing a piece of propaganda insinuating that Mr. Behler kicks puppies, information that is known to be false, that would be employing the second form of lying referred to in the quote - falsification. Concealment can also be used in propaganda. Using the aforementioned 'Mr. Behler kicks puppies' scenario, the propaganda I was composing could show that I had witnessed Mr. Behler kicking a puppy. However, if Mr. Behler only did such a thing because the puppy was rabid and trying to attack him, that would be concealment. I would be leaving out part of the truth of the statement (the statement being that 'Mr. Behler kicked a puppy because it was rabid and about to bite him') to try and emphasize the point I was trying to make. 

The quote has to do with persuasion in that one can both conceal and falsify in order to convince someone of something. For example, if I were trying to convince somebody that I can read Japanese, I could conceal part of the statement (the statement being 'I can read Japanese when there is an English translation.') by simply saying 'I can read Japanese' I would be leaving out the truth that I can only read it with an English translation, but the listener wouldn't know that. They would just believe me when I said I can read Japanese - what reason would they have to doubt me? I could also falsify and say 'I've been reading Japanese since I was three years old'. That would be falsification, since that's a blatant lie, but, once again, what reason would the listener have to doubt me?

These two forms of lying, concealment and falsification, can be utilized as rhetoric. If I were to go into more detail with my persuasion and used figurative language, such as 'I was able to read Japanese faster than Sonic the Hedgehog can run at age three', that would further convince my audience of my claims, in this case through the use of falsification, since I can neither read Japanese nor English as fast as Sonic the Hedgehog can run. 

Both concealment and falsification can be combined in order to form a strong argument, such as the one attempting to convince people of Mr. Behler's puppy-kicking habits and how evil he is because of it. By using concealment in your argument, you are keeping the audience ignorant to some aspect of truth that would weaken your argument should they know it. By using falsification in your argument, you can make whatever claim you wish, which can greatly strengthen your argument. For example, I could lie and say that I've seen Mr. Behler kick thousands of puppies within one week. This would show people that he greatly enjoys kicking puppies and is terrible because of it.