Horatio Alger

http://www.horatioalger.com/

‘An investment in America’s future.’

This website is or The Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished American’s Inc. In 1947 the group was founded to ‘to dispel the mounting belief among the nation's youth that the American Dream was no longer attainable.’

The Horatio Alger Association is made up of people who have been given the Horatio Alger award, which is usually awarded to people who are ‘dedicated community leaders who demonstrate individual initiative and a commitment to excellence’. If an award winner has a partner then that partner is known as a Horatio Alger Life Partner.

The group is very much influenced by the book ‘Ragged Dick’ and aims to make the youth of America aware that ‘hard work, honesty and determination can conquer all obstacles’ and teaches them about America’s ‘free enterprise’. As with the character of Ragged Dick, the group encourages American youths to work hard in order to achieve their very best and better their selves.

Not only does The Horatio Alger Association teach children to live an honest lifestyle like Ragged Dick did, they also give out scholarships to them in order to help them actually progress with their education and careers they chose.

This is the Association’s ‘Mission’:

·

To induct as lifetime Members of the Association contemporary role models whose experiences exemplify that opportunities for a successful life are available to all individuals who are dedicated to the principles of integrity, hard work, perseverance and compassion for others.

· To provide scholarship assistance to deserving young people who have demonstrated integrity and determination in overcoming adversity, academic potential, and the personal aspiration to make a unique contribution to society.

· To mentor scholarship recipients and educate all youth about the limitless possibilities that are available through the American free enterprise system, while underscoring the importance of service to others.

From this it is clear to see that the character of Ragged Dick is a complete role model to the association and has obviously shaped the direction of their ‘mission’.

Tea Party

This video is a commercial for the Chicago Tea Party. As you can see from the video the party tries to appeal to the general population by using unfamiliar faces and everyday people to help promote the party. The people used are all different as they introduce themselves by their jobs, from a Mom to a small business owner, which suggests that the party is there to help people from all walks of life rather than targeting a particular group.

There is quite a lot of focus on patriotism as they use phrases like "I am an American" and words like "liberty". They also speak of the constitution which is another thing highly associated with America and this constant significance of being an American citizen is trying to make you believe that the people who are a part of and vote for this particular party are all true, honest, hard-working Americans. The setting of the video is very neutral so that the backdrop cannot sway anyone's perception of the people.

Towards the end of the video as the actors say that they are "voting for liberty" there is music in the background which gets progressively louder and more emotional which sounds like it is trying to convey a sense of pride for the nation and the party. The final question which is directed straight at the spectator that is "are you?" in regards to "voting for liberty" suggests that if the viewer were to vote for any other party than their vote would not be one for liberty and is quite an aggressive tactic and potentially the most effective method used in the video.

Gun Control

FOR:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/

The Brady campaign is a campaign in which the members want gun crime to be reduced by making laws for obtaining guns stricter and wants to create ‘an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities’. It uses facts and statistics to argue its case for gun control such as:

They also have heavy focus on gun crime that is committed and how it affects the people of America. As well as this it points out loopholes in the law which allows people to easily obtain guns such as the gun show loophole.

AGAINST:

http://www.wagc.com/

Women against Gun Control is exactly what it says. To show that the site is meant for women the majority of it is pink. On this website it makes out that women are highly likely to be victims of gun crime and says things like; “It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep their rights to own and carry a gun. The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.” It also has propaganda against gun control like this; “Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” Quotes are used to try and justify their views such as “Women must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself. - Susan B. Anthony, July 1871” This suggests that they are saying that women need guns in order to be able to be dependant from men.

To me the Brady Campaign feels much more trust worthy. The website looks a great deal more professional than that of WAGC and the content seems a lot more reliable as it backs up their points with evidence which WAGC often fails to do.

History of a minority

For this task I have taken the obvious choice of the black population of the US. The site that I have found to use is http://blackusa.com/

The website feels quite unprofessional for a site that is giving the facts about the history of a race of people as it has a ‘Game Arcade’ featured on there and the overall presentation of the site is a little messy with loud colours. However, it does give a vast view of African-American history and holds information on struggles the black population have had as well as laws passed to do with them and key figures that have influenced their history. The website acts as a celebration of their culture and offers a ‘Recipes’ page in which you can find recipes for many different dishes, although it is a little mixed up and has not only traditional African and Caribbean dishes but also an assortment of other dishes from across the world.

On the homepage for the site it rotates on a weekly basis different parts of the history to encourage people to find out about things that they might not otherwise know. It also hosts articles of current news to do with the black community of the US.

Letters from an American Farmer

In Crevecoeur’s ‘Letters from an American Farmer’ he describes the people’s feelings of America and questions what it is to be an American. The opening sentences of the third letter ‘What is an American?” tells us of the triumph and pride the settlers should feel towards the development of the country and shows us the Crevecoeur himself is vastly proud of what has become of America at this time.

“I wish I could be acquainted with the feelings and thoughts which must agitate the heart and present themselves to the mind of an enlightened Englishman, when he first lands on this continent. He must greatly rejoice that he lived at a time to see this fair country discovered and settled. He must necessarily feel a share of national pride when he views the chain of settlements which embellish these extended shores.”

He compares this new America to Europe and says:

“Here are no aristocratical families, no courts, no kings, no bishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a very few visible one, no great manufacturers employing thousands, no great refinements of luxury. The rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as they are in Europe.”

These point he makes have become less and less applicable to America today as the country is capitalist and does have “great manufacturers employing thousands”. Also the situation between the rich and the poor is little different to other first world countries.

However, today many people still have the sense of the ‘American dream’ and will move to the US in order to better their life. Something that I feel shows this is the MTV programme ‘MADE’. In this programme people are given the chance to break away from their lives and live out their dream and often prove fairly successful. So although America today is very different it is often still thought of in the same romanticised way of the “American Dream”.

Coca Cola

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9jGzpmjb00&feature=related

This christmas commercial for Coca Cola is infamous worldwide, and it seems to be a worldwide decision, that when the advert is shown , it is officially Christmas, hence the repetition of "Holidays are coming". It represents the family values that are so important in America, when the Coca Cola truck drives round it seems to light up both it's surroundings and the people's faces around the path. The clever link between Coca Cola and Christmas is the theme of enlightenment, the assumption that Christmas makes everything ok, and because Coca Cola is linked with that, Coca Cola therefore makes everything better too. 

The commerical focuses on both children and adults, showing children with their sledges and a young boy with his father, Again this reflects the values of America, of the importance of family at Christmas. The image of Santa Claus that is on the side and back of the truck always reiterates the link between Christmas and Coca Cola, implying they both share the same values, hence Coca Cola must be good. The christmas lights all over the trucks also imply this link.

"Something magic in the night, can you see it shining bright?" The idea of magic is always around at Christmas, it is part of the Christmas spirit, and again the connotations of the Christmas Coca Cola advert are magic and family, all very positive things especially in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWwg_5-ou0A&feature=related

"The stars will always shine,
The birds will always sing
As long as there is trust,
There's always the real thing.
Coca Cola classic's always the one,
Whenever there is fun there's always Coca Cola"

I also found this advert which stood out, because Coca Cola, despite it actually being quite bad for you in excess, is described as this fantastic product, that's "fun" and "classic". There is a certain air of nostalgia around Coca Cola in general and in particular the Christmas commercial, as it is so well known, and these values are the same worldwide.

Contemporary use of "Horatio Alger" in relation to 'Ragged Dick'

http://www.thehoratioalgersociety.org

The tagline for this website struck me immediately -
"Our purpose: To further the philosophy of Horatio Alger, Jr, and to encourage the spirit of strive and succeed that for half a century guided Alger's undaunted heroes. Our members conduct research and provide scholarship on the life of Horatio Alger, Jr., his works and influence on the culture of America."

This reflect the values of Ragged Dick, of spirit and strive, as in the book, Dick doesn't let life get him down, and he goes on to succeed in the end. The story of Ragged Dick has become a sort of ideology for this website and for America.
Quotes such as "non profit organisation" also struck me, because Ragged Dick the book seems to be based quite a lot around the focus of money and profit, be it the money Dick spends or the money he aquires from various places. This sort of goes against the book and Alger's values.

In the lecture there was focus on Alger's relationships with children, and allegations were made against him, and he ended up fleeing, and another quote, "now embraces collectors and enthusiasts of all juvenile literature, including boys' and girls' series books, pulps and dime novels." It seems the aim of the society is based around juvenile literature, which, if the allegations were true, is quite fitting to Horatio Alger.

It seems the website in general is promoting the ideas of Ragged Dick to a wider audience, who perhaps would not have ordinarily read the book.

An example of a contemporary American consumer item

This is the video for Burger King's "Texas Double Whopper" Burger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGLHlvb8skQ

Burger King is one of the biggest fast food retailers in the world, engrossing in excess of over $500 million per year, and have kkept tastebuds flowing since it was founded in the 1950's.

This advert targets itself very particularly at men, hinting at the fact that men are more likely to indulge themselves in their produce than women.
However, this speaks rather controvertially and possibly could even be considered sexist to some, however I think that they have chosen to present themselves in this way to be seen as humorous rather than to offend.

Throughout the advert is throws up stereotypes of men doing what could be considered "manly" activities such as muscle pumping, fighting and pulling a truck. I think that this also represents a possible divide in the level of consumerism in the Burger King industry between men and women, and shows this through the "rebellion" of men turning up their noses at healthy food such as keish, that is even cast aside by a man leaving a table at 0:26.

The music and singing I think make the appeal greater as it creates a jingle that can get stcuk in your head and makes you want to sing along.

I also notice a use of combining ethnic backgrounds, such as a man of asian appearance in 0:23 and continuing to appear throught the video.

The end quote that I think stands out and proves that it is directed at men is: "The Texas double whopper, eat like a man, man."

Analysis of Contemporary Consumer Item

iPad: "A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price."
"Introducing iPad. It's the best way to experience the web, email, photos and video. All on a big, beautiful Multi-Touch screen. With just the touch of a finger."



This video is one of the first commercials aired for the iPad by Apple.

From first viewing I find it to be clean and smooth and bright, much like the product itself. The narrator has no distinctive accent and is well spoken. It starts by immediately asking what the viewer wants to know..."What is iPad?" This grabs your attention, and you are then told that "iPad is thin. iPad is beautiful" followed by an onscreen map featuring L.A. Apple may have thought that this opening line would appeal to the American population because, who doesn't want something thin and beautiful? Media already puts pressure on certain people when it comes to this subject and Apple is using that. They are also trying to point out that the iPad is something glamorous and sought after by linking it to L.A. It may also be useful to note that the first ever iPad commercial was aired during the Academy Awards, again linking this product to the 'elite' of society.

The viewer is then shown fairly rapidly some of the things that this gadget can do.
It tries to appeal to as many people as possible by showing a good range of apps from viewing films and photos, sending emails, reading books and playing musical instruments. "200,000 apps and counting." They tell you that you "already know how to use it" immplying that it is just an extension of your everyday life, even when it comes to reading Winnie the Pooh with your child. iPad can do all the things you usually do and enjoy and they are all in one place at the same time. Want to play the piano when you aren't at home? You can, because the iPad is lightweight and portable and has an app for that!


The advert makes you think of reasons you need it, that you didn't even know you could think of. Most people would think buying a paper would be a perfectly fine way to read the news, but after seeing this you then may question that decision and think that reading The New York Times on the iPad is much more convienient.
People today are always looking for ways to make life easier or to save time and in this advert the answer is simple: buy an iPad.

When you watch it again and pay attention to the surroundings and not the product itself, it becomes apparent that despite showing the different range of apps for all different people, iPad is actually aimed at a target demographic. Presumably 'middle class' professionals, those who are possibly better educated and are again like the advert and the product, clean cut. You can tell this from the clothes that the iPad users are wearing, there isn't anyone who seems overally casual. Nobody wearing hoodies or typical teenage clothing, they are all wearing neat and tidy attire that you might associate with wealthier people if stereotyping.

It can also be seen through the environments: someone is in a cafe, others are in the workplace, one man is on the fire escape to a city apartment, and a woman is taking a break from shopping. Shopping that she was doing with a wicker type bag, not the normal/common plastic and paper bags. The homes featured are modern and chic, they are homes that look expensive and very tasteful. Like the iPad.

Although considering the price and the fact that it is made by Apple, it is not surprising that they wouldn't be marketing their products at the average American. Especially as the first word to describe iPad when you look it up is, "magical." Something that is magical, isn't going to come cheaply.


Another way it would seem that they are not targeting everybody, is by the particular apps they have chosen. It would seem at first to be a wide variety, something to everyone but in fact it seems aimed at possibly more educated people. Those who would want access to "more books than you can read in a lifetime" and those using it for presentations and business purposes, as well as highlighting many apps of a scientific nature.

The commercials for any Apple product always end with their logo, a logo that people have come to trust because of the success of the Mac, iPod and the iPhone. Throughout the advert the camera switches to the logo so that you cannot forget who is responsible for this new and innovative gadget. Apple.

If you want to see the history of Apple, it can be found here: http://www.apple-history.com/

Starbucks Advert

This is an advert for a Starbucks product. Starbucks started off as a small time business with one store in Seattle which opened in 1971. However after Howard Schultz joined Starbucks in 1982 it grew both nationally and then globally. In a sense the Starbucks company itself embodies the American dream: achieving national/global success from almost out of nowhere.

This advert sees a young professional drink a can of Starbucks coffee and consequently followed by the band Survivor on his way to work singing about him to the tune of 'Eye of the Tiger'. This advert is clearly trying to appeal to young people working in the city (Yuppies) and it portrays that certain ideology. The fact that it says how he has ambitions and is working his way to the top appeals to the value of the American Dream; by the end of the advert Glen looks empowered therefore it connotes that drinking this product will allow you to fulfil your dream. The music also evokes the idea of the American Dream: the song everyone associates with Rocky and in this film Rocky's only chance to make life better for himself is by boxing and through hard work and training he manages to hold his own in the ring against Apollo Creed who was already set to win. The fact that the band then start singing to another guy implies that Starbucks will treat everybody special this shows the idea of individualism.

The advert also shows the idea of eating/drinking whilst doing and this way of life is quickly replacing eat at home. The product that it is advertising is a can of coffee; therefore not only do you not have to make your own coffee but you don't have to go to a Starbucks store either. This appeals to its target demographic of young urban professionals because they have a busy life anyway and need to have energy for work and for their outgoing lifestyle. The tagline of 'Bring on the Day' suggests this. It also appeals to them because of the idea of succeeding and working your way up in business.

The meaning of Horatio Alger today

I have decided for this week's post to focus on the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans: http://www.horatioalger.org/index.cfm

This organisation was established in 1947 to 'dispel the mounting belief among the nation's youth that the American Dream was no longer attainable'. This implies that popular opinion at that time was that Alger's stories of boys, such as Richard Hunter, who start the story poor but thanks to their good morals and hard workl end up in a respectable position is a myth. Indeed, Alger's idea of the American Dream was discredited during the Great Depression and World War II.

However this organisation does give youth opportunities to follow their dreams through its scholarship programme. This is aimed to 'deserving young people who have demonstrated integrity and determination in overcoming adversity, academic potential, and the personal aspiration to make a unique contribution to society'. Therefore it is aimed at those who possess the same qualities as the heroes of Alger's stories: Dick, despite being a poor bootblack, shows academic potential (his street smart and quick wit) and this potential is fulfilled through studying every night, this shows his determination to become respectable.

As well as this, it aims to 'educate all youth about the limitless possibilities that are available through the American free enterprise system, while underscoring the importance of service to others'. This reinforces the ideas Alger puts across to his audience in Ragged Dick. To the young: grab opportunities offered by the Capitalist society of America; just like Ragged Dick and Henry Fosdick does in the story. To the adults: disadvantaged children (homeless and poor children in the case of Ragged Dick) need your help; just like Mr Greyson and Mr Whitney help the boys in Ragged Dick. This idea of adults helping disadvantaged children is further demonstarted in the association in the form of the Horatio Alger Award; this is given to those who show 'a strong commitment to assisting those less fortunate than themselves and be willing to contribute to the mission of providing scholarships for younger generations'.

Overall the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans rewards those who worked hard and are deserving of achieving their dream, while also rewarding those who give charity and help those previously mentioned to acheive the American Dream. This reinforces Alger's idea that in order for Capitalism and the American Dream to work it needs to be moral and there needs to be charity; therefore I feel that the organisation is very accurate in relation Ragged Dick.

How does Ragged Dick reflect America today? - The Horatio Alger Myth

Horatio Alger's belief that hard work is rewarded through opportunities that are given to an individual, remains to be a central keystone in the princoples of what makes up America.
Though this kind if "mythical" belief of "rags-to-riches" may seem far-fetched to those unfamiliar with American society, but the concept has been achieved many times over. In fact, some of the best examples can be seen every day, and perhaps give some modern day "American idols" justice for achieving the status of "celebrity".

Some examples of those who have achieved this status this way, include Marilyn Monroe: who was an orphan up to the age of eleven, following the death of her father and the mental illness that her mother suffered, whih ended with her being put into a mental institution, Marilyn was forced to marry her neighbourhood boyfriend, still at the young age of eleven. When her husband went off to war she worked on assembly line for aeroplane parts. She was then discovered by a photographer and quickly became a sensation.

Oprah Winfrey: was born to unwed parents, and raised by her grandmother who was poor and sometimes abusive, but taught her to read.
During her home life she was raped by her cousin and uncle at the age of nine and by thirteen had run away from home after suffering years of abuse. At fourteen she gave birth to a son, however he died in infancy. After she was sent to live with her father in Tennessee by her mother, he focused on making her education a priority. Through this she had much success, going on to university and eventually co-hosting a local black radio station and working on television broadcasting as an anchor. She would then go on to front her own TV show, "The Oprah Winfrey Show" which she now presents on American television.

The last example I will use is the President of the United States, Barack Obama. The son of a Kenyan man and a white woman from Kansas, he grew up both in Hawaii and Indonesia, being swapped between his mother and step-father. He knew very little of his father, who lived away from him in Africa, only meeting properly once, when Obama was ten years old. He then died in a car accident some time later in 1982.
Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, by the time he had reached two years old, his father had returned to Africa, leaving he and his mother alone. She eventually met an Indonesian man named Lolo, who Barack's mother, chose for them to go to live with in Lolo's home country.
Barack became known as Barry Soetoro, after his step-father, and showed much leadership potential among his classmates, noted by his teachers.
His step-father, Lolo, gave him boxing gloves one day and prepared to teach him to fight, saying that he had to be strong to survice in a tough world. He told him: "Me take advantage of weakness in other men." As quoted from his book, Dreams From My Father" They're just like countries in that way, better to be strong."
Apparently, when the class was asked to write a poem about their dreams, it was quoted from my source that, "The others said they wanted to be doctors, nurses or soldiers. Berry wrote that he wanted to be a president one day."

I think that these stories of "Rags-to-riches" really emphasise what Horatio Alger shows us throughout Ragged Dick and puts into perspective the importance of this belief in the minds of Americans in the United States. I think that particularly - and not discluding the other examples, Barack Obama's story of having gone from the son of a Kenyan goat-herder growing up in Indonesia living a comparatively mediocre life, to the president of the United States, is a real-life reflection of how dreams can lead you anywhere, no matter your situation. I feel that this unique factor is what contributes to the theme that America has a "Live to work" kind of society.
However some Americans may feel, and not be wrong to have some doubt over whether this ideology is true, and simply not just a fools dream. It may also be fair to say that there is a certain element of "luck" and "chance" - a "who-you-know and not-what-you-know" situation that results in discovering an opportunity - or, as the case me be, the reverse, and opportunity discovering you.


Website list:

Marilyn Monroe: http://youthvoices.net/node/4417
Oprah Winfrey: http://www.cosmoloan.com/money-management/3-impressive-rags-to-riches-stories.html
Barack Obama: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/06/president-obama-story-kenya-to-white-house-part-one

For and Against gun control in America

Should guns be more heavily retained, or continue to be distributed "freely?"
The following website:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/arguments-against-gun-control.html
contains an article that looks at why gun control in America is a bad idea.
One of the first points claims that in 2009, 39 percent of the American population voted to ban guns and other weapons altogether in the United States. It argues that if gun control was implemented, then there would be more chance that ordinary, law abiding citizens would be victims. It supports the fact that restricting gun access would be pointless because "there will always be a thriving black market for trade of guns and firearms."
An interesting point it makes in the second paragraph, is when it says that weapons found on students in schools can be justified because they have "found loopholes in the regulations."
With this, the article relates to various examples of rampages that some students in the past have been involved in resulting in the deaths of other students in the school, however, it plays these down as most are isolated incidents, and in most cases the pupil with the weapon had intention to do harm in an act or terrorism or the like, even further promoting how effective a gun would have been in concluding the rampage, should an authorative figure had one on hand.
One of the strongest arguments this article argues is that guns and weapons are a nations' defence aginst tyranny.
With examples of Nazi control in Europe during the second world war which led to the genocide of many millions of Jews, as the German authorities prevented them, along with Gypsies and landowners from owning a weapon. Had guns still been available, the result could have been very different.

What had surprised me whilst researching encouragement for gun control in America, was the lack of any real independent websites that expressed formal opposition against the possession of weapons. However what I did manage to find were articles considering the advantages of gun control in the U.S. This particular website:

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/355611_research-on-gun-control-in-america-today

Contains a member of the website community, Martin Rojas' opinion of why there should be more control of weapons. They open by saying the following statement: "I do believe in the 2nd Ammendment, but I also believe that there should be gun control on three major points. The first point is on what type of gun can be bought by an individual; the second is whether a person should be able to carry the gun either concealed or unconcealed, and the final point is the extent on a background check."
I think that this would be an idealistic approach to how to approach limiting gun possession as it does not descriminate or harbour prejudice against any race or person, making the limits fair and equal to all. It also covers the important aspects of public security.
He then talks about how he agrees that for the purpose of hunting and providing safety for one's family, purchasing a gun would be appropriate. However he does say that there should be sensible limits on specific models of guns. He then draws reference to the banning of purchasing assault weapons in California in 1989, which influenced the states of New Jersey, Hawaii, Conneticut and Maryland to do the same; he and they share the upheld belief that "An individual does not need an assault weapon if they are only purchasing a weapon for hunting or for safety."
[The ban was, however, later allowed to expire in 2004 by congress, and assault weapons can now be bought legally in those sates.]
He draws onto his second point by expressing the fact one shouldn't need to carry a weapon with them all the time. He insists, but does not quote, that crime rates did not change in states where unconcealed weapons (which equire permits) were introduced, and that if challeneged when carrying a weapon would probably "be more easy to kill that person, instead of just defending."
He says how he would "feel very uncomfortable" If he happened to be at a store and saw someone carrying a gun.
Through his final point, the blogger reveals that he was himself, a gun dealer for "A number of years" and when he was first certified to deal weapons in California, was "surprised" at how the background check was set up: "I thought it would be much harder to purchase a gun and that it would be a much more extensive process." He explains how, after submitting all of the necessary identification and paperwork to the Department of Justice, the individual would only have to wait a period of up to ten days to recieve their weapon.
"Some states", he claims, "Impose a waiting period from 48 hours up to two weeks."
He reasons that all states should instate these laws, in order to allow law enforcements enough time to "look into the individuals history; therefore the consumer/purchaser has what is called a "cooling off" period in case they are planning to use it on an impulse."
He also thinks that ten days is not enough time to carry out an extensive background search, and that more time would allow for a more thorough check of a person's history.

At length, after reading both websites it is easy to see from an American point of view, that allowing weapons to continue to be bought as they are would be the most ethnic solution for all, as it is such a passionately shared belief that the restriction of liberties that were implemented in the constitution may allow for more governmental power over the people. With a country with such a bane against big government, such a eat could prove disasterous. However with subtle changes in weapon jurisdiction, it could be possible to keep availability fair, but also keep the select few from causing potential harm to others, and keeping the general public safer in the knowledge that more intensive background checks are being performed to keep guns out of the hands of those with malicious intent.

Gun Control

Firstly I will explore the anti-gun control website http://www.goal.org/. GOAL stands for Gun Owner’s Action League and it is the official state firearms association in Massachusetts. On the website it says that its main aim is to protect 'the basic right of firearms ownership for competition, recreation and self-protection'. This shows that they feel that they have a right to own guns and that without this they would be disadvantaged not only in terms of their safety but in terms of leisure as well; this suggests that guns are a part of their everyday lives. It backs this point up by saying, 'GOAL works hard to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against those in Massachusetts who wish to infringe upon the freedoms guaranteed by our forefathers'. Therefore they don't just think it's their right but they feel that denying them of guns is going against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the forefathers and freedom; as we've seen many times before it shows their longing for the past and the idea that America is losing it's freedom and all what makes it great.

GOAL is quite convincing because it does say that it's sponsered by sportsmen and law enforcers (however it doesn't state who) and the organisation does do education programs which teach 'young people firearms safety, discipline and responsibility' because 'we don't want our children to think of guns as toys, or worse yet, as a way to solve arguments'. As well as this, on their website they have detailed case studies, legislature and statistics to back up their point.

For the pro-gun control website I found http://www.csgv.org/. CSGV stands for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and it is made up of 48 very diverse national organisations (religious, public health, socail justice and child advocates). As the name suggests, they believe that increasing gun control is important for people's saftey. They also back up their opinions with case studies and statistics. One part of the website give startling statistics including:

• Criminals can buy guns without a background check in 33 states and 40% of gun sales nationwide take place without background checks
• the gun lobby (mainly the NRA) has given over $21 million to Congress since 1990, 86% of it to Republicans. The CSGV suggests that 'the gun industry has an ulterior motive to push for less gun control' and that the NRA are trying to convince America that more guns equals more freedom
• Every 17 minutes a person dies because of gun violence. The CSGV suggest that 'people kill people, but without easy access to guns it would be a lot harder'.

These statistics are alarming and certainly makes it hard to see why people are anti-gun control: people's safety are at risk. Guns may be used for self-protection but you are less likely to need this if gun control is increased.

What makes this website more convincing is the fact that they give a more detailed argument including presenting why anti-gun control supporters are wrong. This is especially clear in the Guns, Democracy and Freedom section of Issues and Campaigns. They suggest that the gun enthusiasts who talk about their freedom are specifically meaning freedom from government oppression: 'They argue that the only way to keep centralized authority in check is to ensure that individual citizens retain the capability to confront the government with force of arms'. Therefore the CSGV believe that the right to possess a gun isn't integral to our freedom as a whole and that the view that guns equal freedom 'degrades the democratic values and institutions that protect all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans'. They also say that 'Gun lobby extremists have been perfectly willing to trample on any freedom that gets in the way of their pursuit of unrestricted private access to firearms...this toxic mix of ideology and firepower has moved beyond rhetoric and resulted in real violence in our country'. Another reason why I feel that the CSGV have a more convincing argument is because of the diversity and amount of organisations that the CSGV involves.

Pro-Gun Control vs. Anti-Gun Control

http://www.a-human-right.com/

This website I found first appears to show two sides to the debate over gun control, guns being seen as a "liability" and "a useful tool".Trying to find a website which was anti-gun control, I clicked on "liability", and it let me to a questionairre about general gun ownership and the use of guns. I tried to put myself in the mindset of an American to complete it. It struck me as quite biased, as it used phrases like "morally correct", appealing to the conscience of the American people. It describes using a gun as a necessity, like in the question, "If no police officer is present is it morally correct for the innocent victim to shoot to protect self or dependents from an attack?". This reminded me of the lecture where it's argued that if an American were feeling threatened, they should call for a pizza rather than the police, because it'd get there quicker. The average American would generally defend themselves and/or their families by use of firearms.

"Some say that just owning a gun would make you a violent person; if I just had a handgun, I would:
- go shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant
- go shoot up the nearest Army base
- kill someone I know next time I get angry
- None of the above, I would continue to be a peaceful person
- act even more politely than before so as to avoid confrontation"

This makes me think that the website is trying to promote guns by telling people what a 'violent' person would do with a gun, and so encouraging Americans not to do the same, and warning them that if they had a gun they may be able to lessen the damage done by the people who go and "shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant". This also made me think about the amount of guns owned in America, and that's only a legal count, if people own guns illegally now, then if they are banned, more people will own them illegally. I don't think it will make that much of a difference. These so called 'psychopaths' will continue to be psychopaths regardless of the legality and accessibility of guns.

At the end of the questionnaire it states,
"If your elected officials do not trust you with firearms, unrestricted access to books and the Internet, or with other personal choices do you think they represent you well? What steps can you take to regain your freedom?" This struck me especially, as Americans see owning guns as being free, and if the government banned them, they consider it a breach of their own personal freedom, something quite odd to an outsider but I would guess absolutely normal to an American who feels this way.

Following the questionnaire, which, according to the link is meant to be anti-gun control, it gives the reader lots of information about guns, stating their three purposes, least important being sporting, then hunting, and the most important use - self defence. Even though it is meant to be the "liability" side of the website, all the site is doing is defending guns against people who have criticised them, by giving an explanation that twists the viewpoint completely. Hence the two sides of the site merge into one pro-gun control rant. It talks about the "proud heritage of gun control", and states that "for most gun owners, personal liberty is as much an ethos as Christianity of Judaism". Both the choices "liability" and "a useful tool" endup at the same page, about self defence. The links at the bottom of the website lead to things like, "becoming a fun owner", "art of the arms", "effective guns" and "necessary evil".

http://www.cphv.org/

This website is only anti-gun crime because it is run by people who have been severely affected by gun crime, so people who have experience with the mis-use of guns. The Brady Centre itself was started in 1974 by Mark Borinsky, who was robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, and Pete Shields, who's 23 year old son was murdered in 1974, became Chairman in 1978. In 2001 it was named after Jim Brady, President Reagan's press secretary. He was nearly killed and permanently disabled as a result of an assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, and has since led efforts for stricter handgun control in America. The entire website is trying to appeal to people on a personal level, "fighting for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and the community". It is implying that nobody is safe, and the website itself also gives lots of statistics about gun control, which also makes it more personal to the reader because they can see how much the lack of gun-control affects people on a personal level. The main point that the website makes is "There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America".

I can agree with both sides of the argument, both seeing a gun as a form of self defence and as a dangerous weapon which shouldn't be taken lightly. There is no way of solving the issue however, because even if the government did make tighter laws on gun control, people will still obtain them illegally, especially criminals, and therefore gun-crime will still exist. The only solution in a way, is to ban guns completely in America, but that will never happen because again, they can be obtained illegally and there would be a lot of uproar over personal rights and freedom. Those who have been affected personally obviously have a strong view on it, however I think it is an ongoing problem and will continue to be, because there is no real solution to the problem. If you take away the guns, these violent people will find something else to use as a weapon; there isn't really an answer.

Voicing the Tea Party in North Carolina

On the 15th of April 2009, a man by the name of Dr. John David Lewis, an associate professor of philosophy, politics and economics at Duke University in North Carolina, made a strong speech to a crowd of Tea Party supporters in Charlotte, North Carolina. The speech in question, consists of a very strong and constructing argument that starts with a semi-rhetorical opening:
"It's a great day for a tea party and high-time for a tea party, is it not?"



He states that the reason for the gathering is to celebrate the founding of America, and to consider the "crisis" that has supposedly grown for the last three generations in the U.S.
He calls the reason that people have chosen to gather and protest there "A genuine, deserved and righteous sense of outrage as to what has happened to this country." He may have chosen to phrase his words like this in order to connect with the tea party supporters' passion and strong beliefs that their country has been 'misled' by the government, and that as a person of significant knowledge and identity, can reaffirm to them that they are right to be angry and opposed to the way that the country is run.
What makes this speech particularly bold and interesting is when Dr. Lewis informs the protesters that the emotions they feel are not enough to guide them to a "Proper future", and that what they instead need is to act on the "original tea party's meaning", the "Rights of man."
I feel that this is significant because it draws a basis for the argument to be supported by, and this personal nostalgia of the nation's pre-history really gives backing to the Tea Party's voice. The rights that Dr. Lewis talks about, which all Americans share are:

. "The right to life.",


. "The right to liberty",

. "The right to the pursuit of happiness",

. "The right to property".

He uses these to remind the audience that they are the core foundation ideas that the nation is built on. His own personal belief is that without these rights, "It [the U.S.] cannot and will not endure."
John Lewis then explains how these rights can be used to imply about how Americans see themselves. As an "Independent individual, standing tall" or a "Whining, snivelling, dependent, bound to beg to some higher power, some monarch, some king, some Lord for the things you need for your life."
I think that this statement is somewhat controvertial as it may offend some religious members in the audience, who may devote some of their dependence to their beliefs, however for those who are not it can be seen as very bold and challenging to those who want to be in control of their own life.
Lewis keeps the nostalgia flowing, telling the crowd about how the surpressed American farmers had driven the British troops from American shores, sparking the great revolution, freeing the American people and establishing the U.S. He also talks about how the rights of men had to be "deepened" and "extended" in order to eliminate slavery and to give women more rights.




During, what is the second part of the speech, he reverts back to the reason why they are at the Tea Party rally, and this is to fight, what he calls a "Cancer" which he says has "Implanted itself" into the nation, and the minds of the people. The"Symptoms" as he calls them, are a "Corruption and a perversion of the idea of rights." What he claims is that rights mean nothing in the modern America, as they have been "Cut and destroyed" to the point where their meanings are gone.
He asks rhetorically, "What are the meanings of rights today?" to which he answers very honestly: "They mean rights to every whim and wish and desire you might have!" meaning that rights have been stretched to completely include the demands of all American citizens, and the government will provide the means for you to do so. Therefore meaning that the government has the ultimate power and jurisdiction to give you what you want, and will often tell you what you can and can't have. However the reality is that you must go to the government and ask for what you want, and this is what drives Dr. John Lewis to oppose big-government.
He states that people are being "Enslaved" in order for you as an American citizen to recieve something. He uses the example for someone being given a car, who is essentially "enslaving tax payers to provide you with that car."
I think the use of the word "Enslaved" in his speech is a very provocative way of getting people's attention. Especially when he suggests that the American people are being enslaved through taxes for the possessions of other people.
During the closing minute of John Lewis' speech, he encourages protestors to go home and tell their children that they should ignore what their teachers and professors tell them that "Rights mean they have a duty to serve somebody else in order to satisfy their whims." And instead that they have the right to follow the rights of man, with the only duty being to themselves to "Be the best person they can be when they live their own life."
He closes by saying that the only way to save the country is to pass the idea on, and spread the message so that everyone understands.
I think that by communicating in this way, by creating the awareness that the government is supposedly spreading corruption through taxes, Dr. John Lewis gives the Tea Party a voice and more popularity, through feeding on the shared dislike of having hard working citizens' money taken away by the government, and by creating connections through common familiarities such as families and wanting to do the best possible to protect them. I feel that this speech continues to add strength to the cause of the Tea Party because it reinstates the fact that people's rights are being subjected to scrutiny, and the foundations that many Americans have great pride in are losing the authenticity that gave America its own identity in contrast with the "corrupt world" that the founding fathers claimed it would not a part of.

Gun Control: For and Against.

When approaching this topic I tried to imagine myself as an American, to imagine that I had the rights and freedom that they do so as not to be automatically bias with my conclusions. Firstly I looked at http://gunowners.org/protect.htm a devoted anti gun control website by the Gun Owners of America lobbying organisation.

"From state legislatures and city councils to the United States Congress and the White House, GOA represents the views of gun owners whenever their rights are threatened. GOA has never wavered from its mission to defend the Second Amendment -- liberty's freedom teeth, as George Washington called it."

The GOA is associated with other 'branches', the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, the Gun Owners of California and the Gun Owners Foundation.

• The Political Victory Fund helps to raise the money to support anti gun control candidates during elections. "GOA has a record of helping pro-gun candidates defeat anti-gunners in hundreds of races across the country over the past 30 years" This includes Tea Party member Marco Rubio, Florida.
  
• Gun owners of California deals solely with gun related issues that arise in that state.
  

The GOA's main argument is that owning a gun is in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and is therefore the people's right and any change to this would be a violation of their freedom. "Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment." Within the website, they have a section for "skeptics" which outlines their arguments for frequently asked questions from those who are pro gun control. http://gunowners.org/just-for-skeptics.htm

They say that banning guns would not reduce the number of murders and homicides and takes Washington DC as an example, stating that there has been no proof or any studies showing that taking away the citizens constitutional rights has made a difference. "I am not aware of any credible study which shows these law have worked -- by which I mean that they have reduced crimes by individuals using guns. And the gun-grabbers and their allies are unable to cite any such study." In fact, the senior editor and attorney at the CATO institute says that the murder rate within Washington DC has increased by 50% since the banning of guns 25 years ago.

The site dispels myths about gun control, including gun control reducing crime rates in other countries, specifically within England. Throughout this particular argument, the font changes size drastically, getting a lot larger on points they want to drive home such as: "British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all."

The website is convincing in the arguments it makes because they try to back everything up with facts and figures as well as producing case studies and real life events to defend their points. Events listed include:

1. "How to stop a rapist"
2. "True stories of self-defense"
3. "Unseen self-defense stories"
4. "How a gun could have saved my parents lives"
   

These were not the only arguments they used, they also mentioned response times of the police, the medias being bias against guns particularly when it comes to school shootings. The media fails to realise that guns were used to stop the killers. However, it could be argued that the shootings may have never taken place if gun control had been harder. They also touch on the subject of "the hidden cost of gun control." Something else that contributes to the successful argument against gun control is the extensive amount of resources the site incorporates. As well as facts and statistics, you can get access to other sites supporting the same ideals, get women's opinions on the matter, read source studies and see decisions made by the Supreme Court. Another interesting section is the "Gun Owners of America Analysis of Current Gun Bills" which can be found here: http://gunowners.org/111anatb.htm -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked someone I know in NJ, what her opinions are on gun control and to start with she said she didn't really have an opinion on the subject. I said that I thought all Americans had one and then this was her response:
"Not all Americans do. It's not something I'm faced with day in and day out. I don't even know anyone that owns a gun but my cousins who are police officers. Yes in my state (NJ) its hard to get a license to own a gun. Most people go outside the state to get one. And in order to carry a gun you have to have a permit. Not that it'll stop people right? I guess as long as there's crime, they'll be illegal guns on the streets. Its great that they try to control it but when you have corrupt people handling the situation there won't be a real solution."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second site I visited was: http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns which is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

"The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy. Our organizational structure is unique among national gun violence prevention organizations. CSGV is comprised of 48 national organizations working to reduce gun violence. Our coalition members include religious organizations, child welfare advocates, public health professionals, and social justice organizations. This diversity of member organizations allows us to reach a wide variety of grassroots constituencies who share our vision of non-violence."

The same as with the other page, it divides into manageable sections listing it's key issues and campaigns, as well as a section for those new to the issue which I found most useful.

The first argument that becomes apparent is the ability to buy guns without a background check through something called the "Gun Show Loophole." This is alarming when it means that criminals leaving the prison system can come straight back out and buy a weapon. They linked to the following video to explain it better.



On the page for those new to the issue, they are their most convincing to try and win people over to their cause. They pick 3 issues that will hit home with the majority of people.

1. Criminals having access to weapons.
2. Political parties making money through the sale of guns.
3. 9 children dying as a result of gun violence everyday. (Underneath in smaller font it mentions the 75 adults that die each day as well.)

What makes it more convincing to me, is that they do accept what the anti gun control supporters would say and use it to their advantage. "Yes, people kill people, but without easy access to guns it would be a lot harder."

Both sides talk about freedom, however Coalition against Gun Violence addresses the NRA's description of freedom as "freedom from government oppression" and says that "This toxic mix of ideology and firepower has moved beyond rhetoric and resulted in real violence in our country."
What was most effective in this section was the opening paragraph, which brings the reader in by attacking the NRA.
"The National Rifle Association (NRA) sells everything from its political agenda to its merchandise with a simple equation: more guns equal more freedom. The NRA steadfastly maintains that the 30,000 gun-related deaths with firearms in the United States every year are a small price to pay to guarantee freedom."

Account of an Early Settler

Using the website www.americanjourneys.org I found many examples of people who have explored parts of America from the 11^th century to 1844. The one that I chose to use is ‘Third Voyage of Discovery Made By Captaine Jaques Cartier, 1541’ As this account by Captain Jacques Cartier is of his third time exploring America, many of the things that he encounters are less surprising to him than they no doubt would have been on his first encounter. However, there are still several things that do draw his attention and make impression enough for him to write in his journal. These things include mainly the natural resources such as the river and plants. He is unimpressed with the size of the river as it is quite narrow and at ‘low water’ it can be very shallow. This is a problem for possible settlers as it could affect transportation of goods. He does remark on the quality of the trees and land on either side of the river. He is amazed by some of the trees and describes them as ‘the most excellent that I ever saw in my life’. He is also greatly impressed by the variety of trees that the land provides as well as the fruit that grows nearby although not as impressed with the grapes he finds and compares them to a lesser version of those in France. Him and his men stay in this place long enough to test the soil and find out how well they can grow crops there which turns out is very well as they plant cabbages and lettuces and it takes only eight days before they come through the ground. After surveying the land he decides that it is very prosperous and describes it as being ‘as good a countrey to plow and manure as a man should find or desire’.

Tea Party Commercial- Remember in November

This extremely dramatic video is a commercial promoting the Tea Party movement:






Most of the video criticises Obama; however it seems to go further than this, they demonise him. This is done through the loud, heavy, dramatic music and shots of him looking powerful and threatening. At first the video expresses many people’s view: that Obama hasn’t changed anything or lived up to any of his promises, it later lists all the things he’s done which have ruined America. The video even blames the audience for voting him in and later they describe how we were brainwashed (as it seems to be shown in the video) by CNN, abc, NBC etc; this further preys on the idea that Obama deceived America. One of the most interesting parts of the video, in my opinion, was the shots of Democrats laughing. This could be to show that they have fooled us and now they’re all powerful and they can do whatever they want; this reinforces the idea that the government are too big, powerful and controlling. The video clearly shows how much the Tea Party is against progressivism, it even suggests that he is a socialist; this is shown alongside an image of the Constitution burning, this is a very powerful image for Tea Partiers because they worship the Constitution. In general they seem to depict Obama as a tyrant.

It is clear that the Tea Party use images of the past to evoke voters. In this video there are people dressed up as revolutionaries, famous monuments, and pictures of the Forefathers. They long to go back to a time when America was great, or at least they think was great however it has been romanticised and is just an ideology. Liberty, it seems, is what people think makes America special (for example the right to own a gun), the many people protesting and waving the flag in the video shows that they still believe America is/should be exceptional. The video shows that they want to go back to a time where there was more freedom. The fact that they are looking to the past shows that they are worried about the future of America; this is evident by the way they present Obama and his government.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio, a member of the Republican Party, won in Florida in the 2010 elections. From 2000-2008, Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives. During this period, he served as Majority Whip, Majority Leader and Speaker of the House. Rubio also travelled around Florida asking for people’s input, this resulted in ‘100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future’ and then for his campaign he composed his ‘Ideas to Reclaim America’. Here are some of the issues Rubio supports:
· Pro-life
· Pro-taxpayer
· He wants to reform education; including improving scholarship systems and preparing children for the jobs of tomorrow
· Job creation through trade and reducing barriers to trade
· Replaing ObamaCare

(Source: http://www.marcorubio.com/marco-101/http://www.marcorubio.com/)

Here is his campaign video (I tried to embed it but when i posted it it appeared blank): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaQywIdjYbM

Firstly, I found this campaign video interesting because there is only one shot throughout the whole video and it is simply of him speaking. This makes him look genuine, no-nonsense, straightforward and that he’s using his personality, not a flashy video, to win votes. He is wearing a suit and the video is set in what seems to be a study; this makes him presentable and smart.

He says, ‘I want to take a moment to tell you a little bit about myself and a little bit about why I want to serve in the United States Senate’; this makes it seem more personal and emphasises that he’s making time to talk to us. The first thing he mentions is about his family, how he lives ‘just blocks away’ from where he grew up and that he has a ‘small’ law practice; this makes him look humble and like an average person which consequently makes him more relatable.

He then goes on to talk about what he stands for, particularly about taxation and how the system drastically needs changing. He presents himself and his ideas as what everybody wants; for example he describes how ‘some people’ believe that the government should have a great involvement in America’s economy but he then says that ‘the majority of us don’t agree with that view and we deserve a voice in American politics’; this reinforces the idea that he is standing for what most people believe. Rubio then says, ‘I know that there are people more famous than I who may enter this race and I know that the President of the United States himself will travel to Florida to campaign and raise money against me but nothing in life worth doing is easy’. This statement implies that everyone, especially those in government, are against him; this evokes a feeling what many Americans seem to feel at the moment: that difficult times are ahead, thanks to the government who are doing nothing to help people; again this makes him seem like an average American.

Finally, he finishes the video by addressing the audience: ‘Thank you for watching this video today. May God bless you. May God bless your family. And may God bless our country. Thank you.’ Overall this video seems to promote Rubio as caring for Americans and what they want.

Giving Voice to The Tea Party in Wisconsin

The 15th April 2009 saw the Madison, Wisconsin Tax Day Tea Party Rally, with radio presenter (Upfront News/Talk show) Vicki McKenna as the main speaker.

"Citizens from around Wisconsin converge on the capitol in Madison to show their disdain and disgust for high taxes and excess spending. Fiscally irresponsible politicians, democrat or republican, we are watching you. Stop taking our money or start looking for another job!"

McKenna, a self proclaimed "converted conservative" has appeared on all major news networks and is a member of the NRA. She strongly supports the Second Amendment - The right to keep and bear arms. For more information on her see: http://www.vickimckenna.com/

The video below, found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBvPFgNTgrM is McKenna's full speech from the Tea Party Rally held in the Wisconsin Capital. It was posted by WisconsinTeaParty and all of their videos from the rally can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/WisconsinTeaParty




There are a few quotes that I found of particular interest in her speech, all of which give voice to one of the key principles of the Tea Party, giving America back to the people.

• "Time to take back our government." (2.09)
  
• "Government is an entity to do for you." (4.08)
  
• "Should never need an appointment to talk to the people who claim to represent you." (5.09)

The main argument she raises is that certain acts have been hidden within the budget, so that the people do not notice them and therefore cannot make an informed decision.

1. Releasing felons ("Shouldn't the victims have a say?")
   
2. Raising auto taxes
3. Pushing for welfare entitlement programs. (This is repeated constantly.)
4. The Governor is driving away jobs to places like Michigan and Louisiana when they need them in Wisconsin.
   

Towards the end (7.17) McKenna says something that I find to be a little ironic: "We don't want Socialism." "We don't want the American promise, we want the American dream."

The reason I find it ironic can be found by looking at this image:

It is a campaign poster from the Presidential Election of 1912, where Emil Seidel who was the first Socialist mayor in the United States, ran alongside Eugene Debs.
In 1910, most of the seats on the Milwaukee city council and county board were actually won by Socialists and even though both of these men lost the race, another Socialist mayor was elected in 1916 (Daniel Hoen) and stayed in office until 1940.
1910 also saw Victor Berger as the first Socialist Congressman in Washington.
In addition, there was a third Socialist mayor, Frank. P. Zeidler who had 3 terms in office. (1948-1960)


The Tea Party seem to be perpetually looking back to how America used to be, but when it comes to this particular state when they look back, they will see a time when the people they oppose were in fact, in power. If socialism is tyrannical then how come they were around from 1892-1960 and why did Socialist mayors continue to be elected?

Although slightly off topic from the original point about giving voice to the tea party, see the video below from around 1.30 for more information regarding Socialist Milwaukee. It does show some interesting images that highlight the irony of Wisconsin being anti Socialism.



Other sources:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9192&search_term=socialism
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-043/?action=more_essay
http://spwi.org/

Al Franken

Al Franken, member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labour Party which affiliates with the National Democratic Party, is the junior United States Senator from Minnesota.  In 2008 he narrowly defeated Republican Senator Norm Coleman by 312 votes, after an automatic recount of votes. He was sworn into the Senate on July 9th 2009, and on September 9th 2008 won the Democratic primary for the senate seat.

Embedding the video unfortunately didn't work, so I've had to put the link in instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhv3_Ir3p50

In the first of the videos I found from his campaign, he openly attacks Norm Coleman's proposals and the quote that stood out for me was "tax cuts for big business, or tax cuts for your family?" which really would have hit home for the voters, as America is seen as very family orientated. Voting for him was also described as "the only choice for change", sort of a spin off of Obama's campaign for Change, promising to do the same, and affiliating Coleman with Bush at the start of the video. Whereas Coleman wanted tax cuts for the rich, billions in tax breaks for big oil and companies that ship American jobs overseas, Franken was in favour of cutting taxes for small businessses and middle class and $5000 for families for college tuition. This would have appealed to the Americans more, hence why he was voted into the senate, as he practically looks like a saint alongside Coleman.

Franken winning the vote was significant, as since senators have been elected in the state of Minnesota, 26 have been Republicans, and the minority - 13 - have been Democrats.
 However hard hitting this ad seems to be, I can't help but view it as quite impersonal, it's not as if Franken is speaking directly to the people, which could be seen as a negative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQFaxnwJc8E&NR=1

The second video I found is Franken retaliating at claims made against him by his opponent, Norm Coleman, about comments he made when he was a comedian, and how it would relate to him as a politician. This video is set in his office, he's wearing a suit and looks very presentable. This can be seen as a positive thing, however some may see it as a way of alienating the public, as kind of aristocratic. Considering his party alliance, it is odd to think that he wouldn't want to be seen as one of the people, rather than just another politician in a suit and an office. It does however, set him in quite a positive light, as he tries to justify comments he made, dismissing Coleman's comments as not a real debate, as sort of petty. He puts Coleman down, saying that what he is doing is "No joke", no doubt a pun about his days as a comedian.

Bob Barr

Full name Robert Laurence Barr. Jr but known commonly as Bob Barr, is a former federal prosecutor and represented the 7th district of Georgia in the House of Representatives between 1995 and 2003. He was also the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in 2008.

Some of Bob's opinions and policies have included:

• Replacing the current tax system with a consumption tax.
• Free trade - allowing more access to private trade with many other countries around the world.
• Voted for the Iraq resolution of 2002, allowing President Bush to procede with the preperations for war. However, Bob has since apparently "regretted" this decision and premotes the call for withdrawal.
• Does not believe in the United Nations and wants the U.S to withdraw some of its functions to bring down America's financial contribution.
• Confidently supports the 'right to bear arms.'
• He is also known as the "Privacy Candidate" for his passion for wanting to protect people's privacy from the government. (For example on the internet.)
  
• And other such policies as: Free, undefined marriage and more control on illegal immigration.

The following is the 2008 Election campaign video used by Robert Barr in order to promote himself to the public. This was directed at citizens using the popular video-sharing website Youtube.



The first quote that stands out for me is when Bob explains that he is running for president; "Because liberty needs a voice and America needs a choice."
The "choice" he refers to is to "get the message to Washington" that the American people will not stand by and watch whilst billions of U.S dollars are spent overseas to fund the American war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan in, to quote from the video, "Operations with no point and no end in sight." He also goes on to say how people with small businesses in America are being told how to run them by the government.
To me, this sends a very clear message that America has too much government involvement both in US functionality and outside affairs and that this should be stopped. By saying this he is promoting himself as the 'perfect' person to deliver this message and change the state of the government.

Towards the end of this video, Bob notably says that Americans "are no longer satisfied with simply voting between the lesser of two evils." By saying this he indictes that people are generally voting for what he has termed as "second-best" and that the American people are not voting for a candidate that represents their wishes because there is not one.

Following the 2008 Election results, Bob Barr and his vice president candidate Wayne Allyn Root recieved 509,478 votes which accounted for 0.4% of the popular vote. Whilst this could not contend with Obama's score, it did, according to an unofficial supporting website of Barr, mean that he had the "Second best result of any Libertarian Party candidate ever."

Referenced websites:
http://www.bobbarr.org/ (Background on Bob Barr)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEV5Zn57HeI (Election campaign video)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9993135-38.html (Background on Bob Barr)
http://www.bobbarr.com/2008/11/14/bob-barr-wayne-allyn-root-2008-presidential-election-results/ (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root Election Results)