Know “Joe” Essay Example for Free

Know â€Å"Joe† Essay During the 2008 General Presidential election, candidates John McCain and Barack Obama used media technology to create compelling stories that would hopefully shift public opinion in their favor, especially among undecided voters. With this essay, I will be analyzing one of the more controversial stories that had been flung to the forefront of the election with the release of John McCain’s I am Joe the Plumber advertisement (Kurtz). I will first show how the GOP campaign used the actual Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio plumber constantly mentioned by the Republican nominee as the average American middle-class citizen, in this advertisement as a popular symbol in order to try to convince voters that the McCain/Palin ticket identified with the concerns of the average middle-class voter. In contrast to the populist rhetoric of the ad, I argue that this strategy in the end failed due to a shallow and false claim that Senator Obama was in support of a socialist tax agenda that would raise taxes on middle-class incomes under $250,000 (Bumiller). The Joe the Plumber ad begins with an out of context clip of Mr. Obama saying â€Å"I think when you spread the wealth around its good for everybody. † This quote came from a campaign stop in Ohio and is the basis for the entire ‘Joe the Plumber’ phenomenon that changed the way the American public imagined an average citizen. Mr. Wurzelbacher asked Mr. Obama if he would raise taxes on people in his income bracket and this was the off-the-cuff response Mr. Obama gave. The moment was caught on camera and the McCain campaign and tried to paint Mr. Obama as a socialist in their never ending strategy of trying to make Mr. Obama appear like he is out of touch with the current state of politics. Immediately after the opening clip, the camera cuts to a succession of three close-up shots of middle-aged white women saying directly into the camera, â€Å"I am ‘Joe the Plumber’. † Next, a female narrator rhetorically asks, â€Å"Spread the wealth? † as the words themselves dissolve into the group of frowning people on screen. Next, a combined sentence of two men ensues asking, â€Å"I’m supposed to work harder just to pay more taxes? † Then, a skeptical man rhetorically asks, â€Å"Obama wants my sweat to pay for his trillion dollars in new spending? † followed by another woman stating, â€Å"I am Joe the Plumber. † At this point the narrator comes back and says, â€Å"Barack Obama: Higher taxes, more spending, not ready. † These words are bold and flash on-screen shown against a smirking picture of Obama. Of course, the commercial ends with a smiling picture of John McCain with his voiceover, â€Å"I am John McCain, and I approve this message. † It is interesting to note that this campaign had largely been fought through the media. According to a study by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, John McCain’s campaign spent close to $120 million on broadcasting television ads (Election). This figure is hard to believe and it forces the audience to think critically about how much importance the swaying of public opinion has played in this election. With this much campaign money being spent on image creation, it is obvious that every nuance to every advertisement is purposeful in its intention and message. With this in mind, I will describe how the ad changed the way I approached mediated politics. Initially, the ad made me identify with the claims presented, after all, who really wants to pay higher taxes in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? The people making these statements in the commercial appear to be average enough: they aren’t shown wearing expensive clothing or fancy jewelry, they talk directly into the camera, and they avoid hyperbole and demonstrate a genuine concern about these issues. Unfortunately for the McCain campaign these claims fall by the wayside upon closer inspection and research. As it turns out, the ‘real’ Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher â€Å"owed back taxes, did not have a plumbing license (he told the Associated Press he doesnt need one because he works for someone elses company), and may not have been registered to vote. † In addition, he has since admitted that under Obama’s proposed plan, he would receive a tax break because he only makes $40,000 a year; not the $250,000 he originally claimed as a small business owner (Chipman). The ‘trillion dollars in new spending’ that the ad claimed also turned out to be based on false information. The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculated that Obama promised a total of $990 billion in new spending over his first four-year term but his proposed spending cuts come to around $989 billion. This means that the net actually balances out (Dobbs). With all these false claims and the millions upon millions of dollars spent, I ultimately felt annoyed and cheated by this advertisement and the overall strategy employed by the Republican ticket. If the McCain campaign was going to continue to resort to attack ads based on false information then what would lead us, the average American public that they so repeatedly claim to identify with, to believe that they would tell the truth about important issues if they would have won the election? Another problem I have, not only with this particular ad, but with the Republican advertising campaign in general is the haste with which they adopt these media symbols without doing very much background checking on them prior to using then them for their own agenda. ‘Joe the Plumber’ is the key example here, but an even more troubling example may be McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate. Both ‘Joe’ and Mrs. Palin greatly motivated and energized the Republican side in the short term, but as time progressed and the media and public had the chance to learn more about these campaign catalyst symbols, they eventually turned out to counter-balance the initial jolt they provided. For instance, the media picked up on the story that Governor Palin spent over $150,000 dollars on her campaign wardrobe at extravagant retailers like Saks 5th Avenue (Bumiller). This image directly contradicts the ‘average hockey mom’ mythical portrait that the GOP had fought so hard to perpetuate in order to capture middle-class citizens, especially females. Repeatedly, the Republican campaign of John McCain and Sarah Palin resorted to negative attack ads based on faulty, if not completely false, premises. The ‘Joe the Plumber’ ad continued this troubling trend. In fact, it may be the iconic example that eventually turned the tide against the Republican nominee, especially after considering that the media outted the ‘real’ Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher as a fraud and liar willing to bend his story to fit an ideological narrative. Despite this advertisement’s shaded attack against Barack Obama, in my opinion it actually did more harm to the Republican ticket due to the lack of honesty and the propagandist appeals to an imaginary middle-class whose interests are being manipulated and distorted through the media in order to sway public opinion to gain voter support. Works Cited Bumiller, Elisabeth, Jeff Zeleny. â€Å"McCain and Obama Hurl Broadsides at Each Other Over Taxes and Jobs†. The New York Times. 25 Oct. 2008. http://www. nytimes. com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24campaign. html? ref=politics. Chipman, Kim, Hans Nichols. â€Å"Obama, McCain Pit Plumbers vs Hedge-Fund Managers in Tax Debate. † Bloomberg Press. 23 Oct. 2008. http://www. bloomberg. com/apps/news? pid=20601087sid. Dobbs, Michael. â€Å"Obama’s ‘Trillion Dollar’ Spending Plan†. The Washington Post. 1 Oct. 2008. http://voices. washingtonpost. com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas. â€Å"Election 2008. † The New York Times. 2 Nov. 2008. http://elections. nytimes. com/2008/president/advertising/index. html Kurtz, Howard. â€Å"McCain Ad: We Are All ‘Joe the Plumber’†. The Washington Post. 22 Oct. 2008. http://voices. washingtonpost. com/the-trail/2008/10/22/mccain.

frames of the iraqi war Essay -- essays research papers

The Frames of the Iraqi War   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There are many views, theories, perspectives, and ideas pertaining to the War in Iraq. Throughout the last three years, as more and more information becomes available, the reasons for going to war with Iraq has changed. The War in Iraq would be considered a social movement. Therefore, it has many collective action frames, which legitimize a set of beliefs about a certain action or movement.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first pro-war frame is the first reasoning that the government gave for going to war with Iraq in the beginning – weapons of mass destruction. The United States had reason to believe that Sadaam Hussein, Iraq’s leader, had weapons of mass destruction and was harboring terrorists or contributing to terrorist actions. This could be identified as the motivational frame. It seemed as though America had a legitimate, rational explanation for invading Iraq. The United States government had both factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the frame: credibility and relative salience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The motivational frame, weapons of mass destruction, was given credibility when it was said by the Central Intelligence Agency that they had reason to believe that Iraq was producing such weapons. It was also given credibility when the President identified Iraq as part of the â€Å"Axis of Evil† and a threat to the United States. The American people look at the President to know the information...

Candy in Of Mice and Men Essay

Candy’s name has many connotations and many of which gives us an insight to the inequalities against old people in American society. Candy on the very simple and literal level means â€Å"sweet and pleasing† and shows that Candy is a very sweet, nice old man. Another connotation that springs to mind is that Candy, the old swamper, is a very friendly, honest and open man with whom you can talk about everything. This is underlined by his name: â€Å"candid† means â€Å"not hiding one†²s thoughts, frank and honest†. But Candy’s name has also an even deeper meaning or connotation which highlights an inequality in society in that his name- Candy- is a metaphor as much like his name, candy or sweets have a sell-by date. This portrays that in American society all workers are expendable or indispensable and after a given time they are rendered as useless. The killing of Candy’s dog is a key metaphor in the book as Candy the old handyman, aging and left with only one hand as the result of an accident, worries that the boss will soon declare him useless and demand that he leave the ranch. Even though we learn that Candy’s dog was once an impressive sheep herder, past accomplishments and current emotional ties matter little, as Carlson makes clear when he insists that Candy let him put the dog out of its misery, we see this in the line: â€Å"He ain’t no good to you†¦why’n’t you shoot him Candy?† Candy’s dog serves as a harsh reminder in American society of the fate that awaits anyone who outlives their usefulness. This situation also portrays an inequality in society in that society views on their age and incapabilities rather than their values and past achievements. Steinbeck throughout the novel uses Candy to portray to the reader the inequality of ageism in American in society in 1920. Through his descriptions of Candy’s working and living conditions, Steinbeck highlights the frequent use of discrimination and ageism. Candy is an â€Å"old swamper†, who lives in a â€Å"bunkhouse†. His possessions are a â€Å"bunk† and â€Å"an apple box†. Theoretically, one should treat aged people respectfully. In our society, pensioners have a better life than employees. However, Candy is a â€Å"swamper† and he is not treated fairly. The repetition of â€Å"old† in Candy’s description also emphasises that his appearance and inability to work because of his age was what many people judged Candy by. Candy because of his age and disability is an outcast on this ranch we see this when he does not go into town with the rest of the ranchworkers which highlights how excluded Candy is. The exclusion of Candy is another indication of the inequalities in American society in that it was very ageist and discriminative. In our society pensioners are treated with a lot more respect that the average middle-aged working class citizen but we learn from this novel that society in 1920 was juxtaposed to this. Candy did not get pension or benefits for the government; the only sum of money he received was the inadequate sum of $250 for the loss of his hand, which contributed massively to his uslessness. This is an indication in of an inequality in society as old people were not even valued by the government as there were no pensions. Old people were poor in the 1920’s because they were seen as useless by the average people and the government alike. This indicates that American society greatly believed in the term ‘survival of the fittest’ and believed people should ‘work until they dropped.’ After Lennie leaves the ranch Candy replaces his role and becomes dependent on George: â€Å"What we gonna do now George? What we gonna do now?† Also throughout the novel we notice Candy’s vulnerability in the ranch especially when it comes to the boss. For example we see in the line: â€Å"You won’t tell Curley nothing I said?† that Candy is in fact frightened of the boss and his son and knows that they have the power to get rid of Candy from the ranch and therefore would leave him with nothing. Candy is a passive man, unable to take any independent action. Indeed, his one major act in the book – when he offers Lennie and George money in order to buy a piece of land with them – is a means by which he can become dependent on them: â€Å"An’ I’ll make a will an’ leave my share to you guys in case I kick off† This indicates an inequality in that it shows how vulnerable old people were in American society especially once they got past the stage of being able to work as no one seen them as any use. View as multi-pages

Business Ethics Study Poerty in America - 1612 Words

Week 3 Case Study 3.3 Poverty in America Stacey Curry Business Ethics Upper Iowa University Professor Kalai McHan TRY TO TURN POVERTY TO POSITIVE In the time of the Great Depression back in 1930’s, where a time where four million Americans had fallen into poverty. Then in 2008 the economy experienced a serious economic meltdown crisis and recession, at this time 44 million adults now live below the poverty line officially defined as an income below $10,830 for a single adult or less than $22,050 for a family of four (Shaw, 2013 p.132). The economy today in my opinion, where poverty is still a huge impact due to the cost of living going up but the income is not changing and it appears people are digging themselves into bigger holes.†¦show more content†¦A major factor determining whether someone will end up living in poverty, education or skill level can make or break an income. Education plays a vital role in acquiring jobs, learning new skills, and bringing home necessities and comforts of life; also include overpopulation, and high stands or living. As it states in our reading, â€Å"most poor people in our nation---about two-thirds of them---are white, but blacks are about two and a half times more likely to be poor. Whereas one out of every ten white Americans is poor, one of every four African Americans and one out of every five Hispanics live below the poverty line† (Shaw, pg.133). As we can see with these statistics, race plays a major role in poverty. I think the causes of poverty fall both into structural and individual. Poverty is structural because its deprivation that is reinforced by economic and social barriers preventing access to skills, employment opportunities as well as better housing. Without economy today, a lot of people are living in poverty and unless our economy changes, I think the poor don’t have a choice but to live in poverty. On the other hand, it can also be individual as well because if you’re not willing to fight and try for your own well-being, then it’s not the economies fault you’re living in poverty. Even though this economy isn’t helping, that should be enough motivation for anyone to try anything possible to live a healthy poverty free life.