Censorship

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7047694/fcc_censorship

The article starts with describing an incident in which Howard Stern was fined $27,500 for 18 incidences of "indecent material" through his radio show in 2004. In comparison to the bill that Bush was trying to get passed, this amount seems like "chump change." The bill that Bush was trying to push through increased the maximum fine to $500,000 PER violation. As the article goes on, it describes the cost of other various "indecent" incidences by other artists as equal to the cost of completely inhumane and ridiculous actions such as "illegally testing pesticides on human subjects." Others of these comparisons include "wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home," "nuke malfunctions," dumping toxic waste in New York's drinking water," and "willfully placing an employee at risk of injury or death." The point of contention that the author is making is that he believes the government is making way to big of a deal about censorship. The author is expressing that it is completely unreasonable for Bono from U2 to be fined up to $500,000 for saying "f***ing brilliant" on the radio, while the biggest fine paid for by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year for a "nuke malfunction" was $60,000. I think this author was highly effective in his argument against the proposed plans of censorship. He uses hard evidence (ethos) and uses powerful comparisons (pathos). Personally, I'm in favor of censorship, but in moderation. There are some things that I know I won't want my future children to hear, but at the same time this bill places absolutely horrendous fines on simple swear words that are more expensive than the fines for testing poisons on human subjects. It just doesn't make sense.

Music Video Analysis

My family moved around a lot when I was younger. We've lived overseas 3 times and are now in our 4th location in the United States. While many things changed constantly as I grew up, one thing that never wavered was that country music was always in my life. My parents would always put on Garth Brooks, George Strait, and Toby Keith. When this song, "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" came out after 9/11, it became one of my favorites. My grandfather was in the Marine Corps for 37 years and my twin brother is going into the Marine Corps as an officer when he graduates college. With my strong personal connection to our troops, this song hit home with me. Though the lyrics are very bold and in-your-face, it's a very passionate song defending the country we live in. The use of Ethos is very apparent in this video, as it has real footage and photographs of our troops at war. Toby Keith establishes credibility for himself through videos of him playing concerts for the troops overseas. He also establishes credibility at the beginning of the song. As he is singing "my daddy served in the Army, where he lost his right eye", they show photos of his father while at war. Pathos is probably the most effective aspect in this strongly patriotic video. First of all, if you just listen to the lyrics they are full of passion for our country and the anger that was felt when it was attacked. Another way it "tugs at our heartstrings" is the footage of the troops when Toby is singing for them. You can see the emotion in both Toby and our troops faces as he sings this powerful song. I had some difficulty thinking of how this video uses Logos. I guess the best way to describe it is if you listen to the lyrics. It makes it pretty clear that if you attack our beloved country, we will be deeply angered and demand justice. The song makes it a fact.