This is the link to the website
http://adamfowlersopinion.wordpress.com/
http://adamfowlersopinion.wordpress.com/
The blog is a compilation of videos, cartoons and articles that bring up and address issues of government, education and the economy along with other smaller issues. Adam Fowler's reason for writing this blog is to share his cynical view of the government in a comedic way.
Hey guys! I thought I would base my analysis of the blog on question 1. here it is :)
ReplyDeleteAfter looking around Adam Fowler’s blog and reading a few of his posts I thought I would comment on the layout and subject material on his page. When I first brought up the blog, the first thing I noticed was the banner at the top saying what the name of the blog was and what the posts on the site were basically going to be about. Although, without even reading the title of Adam’s blog, you knew the subject matter was going to be about something political. This was made obvious by the patriotic red, white and blue colors he used in his font, the giant American flag that made up the background of the banner, the traditional picture of Uncle Sam, and the picture of capitol hill, all things that would conclusively lead you to think about American politics and government. Another thing I noticed about the banner was that the biggest words on it were “Opinion Blog.” This, I believe, is to let the viewer know right of the bat that they may not agree with what Adam posts, as it is primarily going to show his own political views, which, if the viewer continues to read the banner, are probably going to be cynical. I think the fact that Adam openly admits to being a cynical guy is something to take notice of. By outrightly saying his views are going to be cynical he is implying that his blog could either be skeptical and distrusting of the government, or that most of the things he’ll be posting are slightly geared towards his own self interests, or both. This could be a dangerous claim to make on a blog as it automatically excludes a large number of potential viewers. However, I could be wrong in that assumption, and Adam’s confidence in his own opinions could be very appealing to those looking for a political blog to follow.
I would like to respond to question number 7.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question of whether the blog actually does anything, i read quite a few posts.
In general, all of the posts seem to be either highlighting instances of our government displaying childlike behavior, or pointing out when the government is going about things the wrong way. The blog illuminates stuff the government is doing that people would not normally see on the news. For example, one post pointed out that there is actually a fine of up to $5000 for not returning the Census. The post goes on to explain that in districts where there is a low return of census forms, the government will send out a second form to every household in the district to try to ensure that a form is filled out and sent in for every household. In his posts, he does not directly state that he thinks the government is doing something bad, but he presents matter that can only make the government look bad. In a post on Obama's speech on how the media and politicians are just lying and name calling to make their point, he points out how Obama is actually a hypocrite because in his speech he calls these people names and tells the crowd that they are all lying. I think this blog presents only information that can support ones view of the government as overbearing, unintelligent, and inefficient although it does not directly argue that opinion in the posts.
Before I start responding to question #4, let me make clear of my perception towards developing ethos in writing. First, language appropriate to audience and subject. Second, restrained, sincere, fair minded presentation. Third, appropriate level of vocabulary and correct grammar. After browsing through Adam’s post, in the “About Me” column, I noticed he actually bring an effective persuasive strategy by disclosing his education background, objectives, writing style, previous performances and also underline few of his blog posts that have been featured on some of the famous sites. Often if we know about something of the character of writers ahead of time, whether they come with a reputation or extrinsic ethos, which would influences how convincing or trustworthiness we find what the writer has to say. Citing a bunch of sources always adds to writers’ credibility, however I barely see Adams follow the format dictated by the MLA or APA or whatever a particular academic community expects in each blog post attached with an image or a video. Although we are given culture’s privileges of free speech and personal equality, Adam seems to have vast possibilities well versed in his subject and well spoken about it. This can gain him credibility too. All of these seem particularly important for a writer because they demonstrate an author’s reliability, competence and respect for the readers’ idea and values through reliable and proper use of support. At this point, I rarely see any rebound on the writer’s identity.
ReplyDeleteI have decided to respond to prompt #6.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Adam Fowler's post, "Secret, 'Special' Interests", I thought I would analyze and comment on the rhetorical devices that he used. The author writes about the recent speculation that right-winged special interest groups or candidates are being heavily influenced by a select few powerful individuals. In particular, he notes a recent comment made by President Obama that tries to reveal that such special interests are controlling a significant amount of voters through their excessive advertising and rallies, which are allegedly funded through foreign income. This is followed by the author arguing that it is indeed Obama who is desperately trying to influence voters with his power as president(this quote by Obama was made a month before the November elections) and that the only way to solve the issue of these "special interests" is to generally decrease the amount of decisions made in politics. I think the author makes a significant point right here when he highlights the problematic "special interests" as being none other than the politicians themselves, who are always seeking to gain more power. He reveals the controversy that the public should be more cautious of our own political leaders than these unknown individuals who persistently fund influential special interest parties. I agree with the author's claim to its entirety. There is nothing more dangerous to politics than the measures that the very own politicians take in order to ensure themselves of more power. This theory is well-supported and indicative in Adam Fowler's blog entry.
I'd like to respond to question 7 as well.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading many of Adam Fowler's posts, it seems like the blog has an actual purpose. Most of the posts are about the government's actions and they point out that the government should change some things. The blog also seems to point out the weaker points of politics. For example, Adam posted about the TSA's invasive pat downs of airline passengers. He states that certain politicians have to agree with this violation of an amendment so they don't look like hypocrites. This shows that politicians are willing to save themselves before helping the American public. Also, in the most recent post, Adam points out that politicians are taking aim at their opponents during unfortunate events. The tragedy in Arizona is being used as ammunition for political opponents to blame someone for this event. It's quite sad that the people we elect are thinking of themselves before the American people. Adam Fowler uses his blog to point out what is wrong in American politics and/or government. He doesn't say it directly, but he presents information and commentary that shows he doesn't agree with somethings going on in the government.
This is Chelsea Moherman. Sorry for my informal blogger username. I've had one for quite some time and didn't want to make a new gmail account.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I chose to respond to Question #5:
In nearly all of his posts, Adam Fowler uses a word such as "we" or "us" that connects him to the audience. He probably expects his audience to be a group of educated Americans who are interested in reading or learning more about our government. I think Fowler believes his audiences values mainly knowledge and learning. On his blog, he's talking about "our" government so it's natural that he would use these connecting words. However, I assume that he is also using them in an attempt to persuade those who do not believe in his point of view about the government. By making them seem like they are united, he hopes they will start to view things his way.
This is Jake Eckstein
ReplyDeleteAfter reading some of Adam Fowler's posts I have come to the conclusion that he is a full of shit idiot who gets off on ridiculing government policies. He uses unnecessarily complex language to communicate his points. I do, however, agree with a lot of his views. For example, in the article "Politicizing a Tragedy" he repeatedly states that the government should not use the shootings mentioned in the article as a political platform; they should instead be focused on helping out the victims of the situation. However, I think that if he feels that way he should take some sort of action to help the victims himself rather than bitch and moan on a blog about how someone else isn't doing the right thing.
I thought the two videos were pretty interesting. I couldn't tell for sure, but it seemed to me that they were mocking conservative republicans who want government to be very small. Like in the Hugh Jidette video, how it makes no sense to keep taxes so low if we are going to spend so much money. At some point our interest is going to catch up with us and we are going to be in even bigger trouble. I thought that went along very well with the quote from George Will that said most Americans very rarely come into contact with their government. In some ways, whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office does not affect most people in a radical way. I know that personally I have not seen a real difference in my life from the time George Bush was the president to now that Barrack Obama is in office. So I would tend to agree with that point, people think there is going to be a night and day difference in the country based on who is the president. Most of the time there is so much policy gridlock in congress that the president can not produce a lot of change anyways. And yet, many Americans are absolutely convinced that who is elected will drastically change everyday life for the typical citizen.
ReplyDeleteDoes the blog actually do anything?
ReplyDeleteI think the blog definitely illuminates much of the news that is not covered by mainstream media news shows and papers. It appears to stimulate discussion on much less discussed topics within the big news headlines. For example, instead of just empathizing about the Arizona shootings and trying to decipher why it happened, Fowler points out how politicians are trying to use the unfortunate incident to their advantage by blaming the tragedy on right winged politicians. Furthermore, he discusses the sink holes that are becoming more prevalent in Florida and how they may indeed be a good thing for the economy which is not something I would have concluded after hearing about the devastation caused to the farming industry. If Fowler is not actually making a difference, he is at least evoking discussion on less mentioned, obscure topics.
In the author's about me section, he describes himself politically as a libertarian, someone who supports individual rights and freedoms of speech and thought. This is specifically reflected in his post "French Equality Veils Liberty" in which he discusses how France has dealt with an influx of Muslim integration. The country banned religious symbols in schools in favor of social equality but in doing so rejected the individual religious rights of Muslims. By rejecting these French laws because they violate individual rights to free thought, the author shows his libertarian political beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading some of Adam Fowler's post I have come to the conclusion that he is a one sided, bias Conservative. Like in the Liberal/Progressive Ignorance of Economics he bashes liberals saying that they are dumb and if the government was only run by them it would have no hope. I do agree with some of his post, like Politicizing a Tragedy. I completely agree that such a tragedy like that should not be turned around to make one political party look good. Also the post More Highly Paid Federal Employees is so true. The taxpayers should not have to pay for the national debt and the outrageous payroll of the federal employees
ReplyDeleteBecause there is no people response Question #1, I'd like to say something about the interface of this blog.
ReplyDeleteThe first glance of this blog is three things:the old man which is very popular because he always appears on voting post, American flag and white house. It is obvious that it is a political blog. Then we move to the text. We can easily find the author of blog and the usage of this blog. From the white word under opinion blog: A cynical perspective of Big government & more, we can indicate that Adam Fowler is a opponent of Big government. By the way, I like the word for weekend a lot. He always choose some sentences that make people thought provoked.
After reading through a couple of Adam's posts I would say that it is pretty clear that he is a big supporter of individual freedoms and a minimized role for the government. This can be seen in his complaints about how the government has handled airport security. In the same post he says the people in power have become so drunk with power that they are willing to throw away their basic principles and violate the Constitution. Without even looking in the About Me section you can tell that he is a libertarian based soley on a few posts.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how often Adam uses "us, we, our" in all of his posts. I mean his posts aren't flooded with those words, but he uses them frequently enough to convey a specific point to his readers. That point being that Adam is 'one of us'. To his readers he comes off as someone more closely related to the audience instead of an arbitrary source that speaks at the audience rather than with them. It makes his blogs more personal and easier to relate to. I feel that through the use of this 'tactic' if you will, also helps to (in a sense) validate his opinion. Because Adam is 'One of us' his opinions make more sense and seem more valid.
ReplyDeleteI decided to respond to promt #1.
ReplyDeleteWhen I looked at Adam Fowlers blog, right away I could tell it was about politics. There is a banner at the top with the American flag as the background. On it it says “A Cynical Perspective On Big Government & More”. There is also a picture of Uncle Sam. All of these things make it obvious that it is about the government and politics. Also from the words on the banner, we can assume that he is against big government. Because of this I think he is a right winged conservative.
I actually couldn't stop reading what Adam has written in a lot of his blogs. It's like he is against every thing that the government does. I fell it's kind of ironic that he spent years of his life going to school for political science just to bash on politics.He does make some points like about the sink holes in Florida and how it would support the "Broken window fallacy". But his only point for each blog is to bash the government. I think Adam needs to provide solutions to each problem if he wants to bring them up. If he provided solutions then he would probably really raise the amount of followers he has, provided that they were logical solutions. No one wants to do the work to help out these small time problems that don't really effect us all that much. Adam on the other hand put in the work to see all the faults of the government, so why wouldn't he go a little farther and try to contribute to the situations?
ReplyDelete