The Artifact: Mini-Trump

The artifact I will be analyzing for my term paper is an article submitted by Chris Moody titled The Time I Went to Summer Camp with the Future Mini-Trump. The significance of this piece is that Moody reflects on his experience with Stephen Miller, Trump's senior advisor, at a summer camp that entails a mock government. To check out the story, you can go here.

Moody paints a narrative for the audience that is overwhelmingly negative, often comparing Miller to Trump with typical phrases that we have all become too familiar with. He shares a story about how Miller's action at this mock government showed Miller's true colors and how a real position of power is a negative thing for the United States.

Using the Narrative Paradigm, I will dissect Moody's story on how he portrays Miller, and how I believe that the ultimate goal is to once again demonize the office of Donald Trump. This is not just a story about summer camp, but rather a demonization truly meant for Donald Trump.

Frank is Rolling Over In His Grave

On January 19, 2017, CNN's Caroline Kelly put out a report that the eldest daughter of Frank Sinatra, Nancy, was displeased at the fact that President Trump and his wife Melania have chosen the song, "My Way," for their first dance at the Liberty Ball.

CNN also reported that Nancy has shown a great disliking for Mr. Trump during the process of this election based on her tweets about him. The tweets are listed below:

Just remember the first line of the song. https://t.co/dYrXv818i9

— Nancy Sinatra (@NancySinatra) January 19, 2017

Watch your language, Mr. Trump. Children are watching and listening. https://t.co/kttXDv0KA3

— Nancy Sinatra (@NancySinatra) January 16, 2017

Tell @realDonaldTrump: Don't derail climate progress & unleash more fossil fuels. Add your name:https://t.co/CRo3Y8EUaw

— Nancy Sinatra (@NancySinatra) January 17, 2017





Now, as it is shown, one could argue that the extent of Nancy's "dislike" for President Trump is somewhat overblown. When looking at the context of the this article, one could argue that Kelly was using buzz words like "disdain" in order to appeal to those in support of Trump. By using hate words to express Nancy's feelings toward President Trump, a negative light is undoubtedly shined on Sinatra, which in-turn causes an outrage for those in support of him.

As stated above, this whole article originated because Nancy, allegedly, responded to reporters about the news of the Liberty Ball by telling them to look at the first line of the aforementioned song. The line is, "And now, the end is near." Whether this is true or not, it seems that Kelly is grasping for straws to find a story out of nothing.

Regardless of this, the article is written in such a way that would appeal to the devout support of Trump and thus incites a reaction out of this crowd. On the flip side of the coin, those who do not support Trump may find this article discouraging because it painting people, who share their same beliefs, in a negative way.

I think that this article holds better appeal to those who support Trump on the matter. I say this because it ignores the legitimate concerns that a U.S. Citizen is having with Trump and it is being spun into an attack on him. The writer simply uses carefully selected words and images from social media to portray Sinatra negatively without giving the full context of the story.

Sinatra later responded on Twitter with the following:


As you could probably guess from the title, I don't think that Frank would be too pleased with how his daughter is being shown in the media. I don't think any parent would be too pleased, quite frankly.

Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Everyone has heard about it. Global warming is a problem that affects all living things, but is it going on at the current moment? First of all, it is important to know that the definition of global warming is, "an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect." Now that that's covered, let's see what some people have to say about this.

William Gray, who is the head of the Tropical Meterology Project at Colorado State University, told Discover magazine in 2005 that, "nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing." He then went on about how the average person who is not familiarized on the topic will simply look at a graph, see that temperatures and greenhouse gases are both rising, and conclude that it is global warming simply because of the common use of the phrase; furthermore, he concluded with, "just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."

On the flip side, we have former Vice President and star of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth  Al Gore. Gore states that, "in climate science, we only have two things: data (the past) and models or hypotheses (the future)." Gore was focused on the statistics of things, as he spoke about the increases of the dioxide-related greenhouse gases and also the increase in overall temperature of the earth. He then continued to give his two cents about what should be done about the problem. Gore believes that, "there is no known suite of technologies that can affect this rate significantly, so the proper policy is to invest in the future rather than to waste money today in a futile attempt to significantly reduce warming."

Both men addressed the two different sides of the argument but in different styles. In my opinion, Gray tried to appeal to those who were skeptical of global warming and encouraged them to fully believe all that they hear without doing their research. On the other hand, Gore went with a more practical way of getting his point across to the public. He laid out the numbers, and stated research done by professionals.

Looking at both arguments in the eyes of bystander, both men made valid points in an ethical manner. Despite one's belief on the  matter, each argument can be read and they can take something away from either one.

All quotes were taken from the online article Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different Views by Sara Goudarzi. Link can be found below.

http://www.livescience.com/4144-global-warming-hot-air-dozen-views.html 

Donald Trump, Ethical?

In a recent rally against the nuclear deal with Iran, Donald Trump took to the podium to speak about the topic, but also for his own agenda. As a large majority of us know, Donald Trump is in the running to become the President of the United States in 2016 and he is not being shy about getting his name out there.  Trump has said everything from calling Mexicans rapists and to stating that he would indeed date his own daughter.  Regardless of these facts, I am here to discuss the recent breach of ethics Mr. Trump has performed.

In front of a large crowd in Capitol Hill, Mr. Trump made it apparent to inform his followers that the people currently leading our country are, "very,very stupid people."  Below, you can see and hear what exactly Mr. Trump had to say about Mr. Obama and his colleagues.

Now, I personally think that there is nothing wrong with healthy competition amongst politicians and it is also essential for the candidates to point out flaws in order for them to explain how they will fix them.  With all of this being said, Donald Trump decided to take things to a different level that was unnecessary.  The word "stupid" is something that should be relegated to immature scuffles between friends.  If Donald Trump wishes to lead our nation, then I feel he should be using vocabulary that is age appropriate. 

Moving away from vocabulary, I still feel that Donald Trump violated ethics of persuasion because he was manipulating an emotional crowd with immature words as opposed to actually using facts to back up his claim.  I feel as though he avoided the importance of the rally in an attempt to improve his own agenda.  This is not an ethical way to persuade.