Tojo Speech Outline

Joseph Lacovara

Address by Hideki Tojo, Premier of Japan, At the opening of the Imperial Diet: 

Tokyo, May 27, 1942.

 Translation by the Foreign Broadcast Monitoring Service, Federal Communications Commission. 

Purpose: To ensure the Japanese people what their goal is in the war, and how they are strong and united. Make the people stay strong and continue working for the war effort.

Audience:  The Japanese people.

Context:  May, 1942. Nanking massacre already occurred in December 1937 resulting in the Japanese slaughter of 300,000 Chinese people including women and children. The Japanese had just won the Battle of the Coral Sea. Japan had invaded of most of Asia including the Dutch East Indies, Korea, China, Thailand, Indochina, and the Philippines.

Section 1) Introduction/ The Japanese mission in Asia and the current status on the war. 
Purpose:  To inform the people that the Emperor has declared that the people must fight until victory. He ensures the people that Japan is winning the War, and that nothing can get in its way.
Appeals:  Uses much pathos to invigorate the public and unify the nation even further. Establishes ethos by explaining how national defense has been increased.
Technique: Uses many hyperbole's to twist the truth of the war. "Crushed the enemy forces wherever encountered." However lacks to tell how many Japanese have died so far in the war. Only talks about the Japanese successes.
Effectiveness:  Very effective at captivating the Japanese public with his strong usage of pathos. However lacks to tell how many Japanese have died so far in the war and fails to add much logos to support his claims. For me it is very hard to believe his claims because I am American and he lacks evidence to support his claims. He also used many logical fallacies such as "National structure of a sure victory," which doesn't make any logical sense, especially because he supports this with no evidence. 

Section 2) The current strength of the Japanese economy/Japanese colonization across Asia: 
Purpose:  Wants the Japanese people to have faith in their government and trust Tojo and the Emperor. Ensure the people that Japan is economically and militarily strong.
Appeals:  Uses logos in the beginning to explain the previous economic reliance on America and Britain. "Establishing the 4 year plan." Also uses logos to explain how colonization across Asia is fueling the Japanese war effort. "Oil, tin, and rubber" from other nations are fueling the war machine. Uses pathos to thank the Japanese public for their "Extreme hardships." Pathos: The enemy is losing,"Blows they are receiving are serious."
Technique: Uses many Litotes to understate the vicious attacks of the Japanese on other Asian nations. "Various areas in the southern regions; all these have fallen into our hands." Saying that these materials just came to us, while the Japanese were the ones who invaded and stole them.
Effectiveness:  Very effective at ensuring the public of the Japanese economic strength and the reason for colonizing throughout Asia in order to obtain natural resources. He does use logic to support his claims however, there are many fallacies in his speech such as when he understates the brutal attacks by the Japanese across Asia in order to get these raw materials.

Section 3) Japanese foreign policies/relations: "Allied countries" "The enemy"
Purpose:  Inform the Japanese people that several nations are helping and cooperating with the Japanese throughout Asia and the World. Ensures the people that not everyone is their enemy.
Appeals:  Uses logos to establish Ethos. "Germany and Italy, that are cooperating with Japan in the fulfillment of the same objective during this war." Uses pathos to attack the U.S., Chinese rebels and Britain. America is covering up their losses by "relying on vicious propaganda." "Crush the determination of the Chungking."
Techniques: He uses many hyperbole's as well as litotes to emphasize his points. "Southwestern Pacific has completely fallen into our control." Again he states "Vicious propaganda." He used the assumption that Japan could give other nations Independence if they rose up and fought the British with them.
Effectiveness:  Very effective at informing the Japanese that they have strong power, especially because of their allied nations such as Italy, Germany, and Thailand. However he is very ineffective in influencing other nations to rise up and join the Japanese. He doesn't use any hard evidence or facts to support his very strong and biased claims.

Section 4) Conclusion: The Diet:
Purpose:  Influence the Diet to quickly pass the bills regarding the operation of shipbuilding in order to improve the war effort and strengthen the military even more. The bill is necessary for Japan to continue to succeed in the war.
Appeals:  Uses logos to emphasize how important the bill is in being passed. Uses pathos to establish trust (ethos). "I also wish to express my deep respect to the greatest and united efforts of each and every Japanese subject." Appears humble to the Japanese people for their sacrifice which helps to establish ethos.
Techniques:  He used another hyperbole to emphasize how important the bill is, and how it must be passed as quickly as possible by saying, "The emergency situation." His tone in this paragraph is very different from all of the other sections because he takes a more humble and demanding tone, instead of a very enthusiastic and criticizing tone that he tends to use throughout his speech.
Effectiveness:  This section is very effective in speeding the bill through the diet because he uses logos to support his claim that it is an emergency to help the war effort. Also by his careful choice of wording, he makes himself appear very humble. This makes it easier for the audience be loyal and trust in his commands.

General Evaluation: 
Tojo's usage of pathos really helps to strengthen his speech and invigorate his audience, as well as gaining the people's trust. He carefully uses his language when talking about his allies and thanking the people in order to act humble. Throughout most of his speech he rarely uses logos to support his claims, which is really hurting his credibility, especially because he poorly addresses any counterarguments to his claims if any at all. To us Americans especially his speech lacks major assumptions that would be acceptable by an American because of the fact that this is from the point of view of our countries enemy during the war. Example: Assumption that the U.S. is evil, and the Japanese were helping to save the universe. 

The fight for morals in Churchill's and Goebbels' speeches

Moral rightness is commonly used as a call to unite a group of people against a common enemy. Both Churchill and Goebbels use this technique in their speeches. Even though these two men are complete opposites of each other in their beliefs, it is odd that they have the same major point, about fighting a moral war against an enemy that mirrors the devil, however they have different enemies which they feel are a threat to the world.

Churchill uses very strong language especially pathos to support his claims that the British must unite against the "Monstrous Tyranny" of Nazi Germany (1). By using the word monstrous that provides the image of a demon like monster attacking and destroying anything in its past, which Churchill uses to label the Nazis. He explains what the point of fighting is to the British, which is achieving victory by all the strength "God can give us (1)." He states that God is on the Side of the British, and how they are fighting a moral war in order to protect what is right. Goebbels speech is very similar when it comes to moral rightness. He even explains how the Germans are trying to achieve a "European mission (6)." This shows how he views the Nazi mission in the war, almost as a religious mission in ridding Europe and the world, from the tyranny of Bolshevism. He describes the Bolshevists as "the incarnation of evil, as the plastic demon of decay (6)." This is certainly a very strong pathos filled statement that again just like Churchill brings in the image of fighting the Devil. He calls the Jews a "Culture destroying chaos," which also emphasizes how the Germans are the good people in the war who are fighting for what is morally right.

While Churchill is talking about fighting the tyrannous Nazis, Goebbels is talking about fighting Bolshevism in the East. It is quite odd that both Goebbels and Churchill use the same moral tactics in both of their speeches, especially because their view of enemy differs, as well as what they are actually fighting for. Churchill throughout his speech describes the British responsibility to ridding Europe of Nazi control, while Goebbels talks about the moral responsibility of Germany to Free Europe from Bolshevism, and Jewry. Both men are talking about freeing Europe in some way, however the tactic Goebbels applies uses much more violence in order to achieve his goal. Even though Churchill talks about fighting with as much force as possible, Goebbels talks about Fighting not only Russia, but in simple terms exterminating the Jews from the European continent. Churchill only talks about getting rid of Nazi control, not exterminating the entire Nazi German population. Yet both men still use the tactic of moral rightness, even though it may not seem right to say that any war can be moral whatsoever.

It is very odd that two men with entirely different political views, use the same tactic of fighting a war for what is morally right. Through Goebbels speech he emphasizes the Nazi objective to exterminate the Jews and Bolshevism, which is very unlike the speech of Churchill. Churchill only focuses on fighting the Nazis in order to get rid of Nazi power, not to exterminate all Germans. Is it even right though to say that fighting for any war is supporting a truly moral cause. If that is the case then in future wars should the moral cause tactic even be used, just as it has been used by leaders of all nations for hundreds of years?

Machiavelli and Thoreau

Morals are the way we believe what is right and wrong. This accounts for everything we do, like talking to elders and obeying laws. The reason why we do almost everything we do, is because we think it is morally right. Both Machiavelli and Thoreau believe in being morally right, however Machiavelli’s thoughts of morals are contradicting, while Thoreau believes very directly that men only somewhat act  morally.

Power and control is usually thought to be at its best, when a leader is morally just. Machiavelli however believes that a prince should appear moral, because he will influence people to obey him, yet he should be feared, and sneaky. How can someone have morals yet be both sneaky and frightening? Thoreau has very direct views that a government that is unjust, and is not morally right, should be overthrown by the people. He thinks that following what is morally right, is most important when it comes to power, and control, yet he says that as a whole, man does not follow morals.

Man in general should be moral, which is why we have a system of laws, in order to keep the masses of people on track, and behaving properly. Machiavelli believes that men in a way are idiots, because they can be deceived by the craftiness of the person in control. He is saying that men believe in morals but are deceived by their rulers, who are more successful than a ruler who is an honest man. Could he be saying that believing solely in morals makes you stupid? Thoreau is saying that the individual is somewhat moral, but the masses of men are not. He believes that men have a moral sense of what is right and wrong, yet for example in the issue of Slavery they just decide to ignore the issue, even though they know it is morally wrong. I think this means that the individual is not strongly a follower of morals.

Appearing good at heart means that you appear to strictly follows morals and can be respected. Machiavelli explained how it is good to appear moral because people will trust you, however you must also appear frightening. He says that a prince should be man and beast, meaning he appears with two sides, the moral, and the frightening beastly side. Thoreau however is very direct with saying that voting is not a good way to achieve the best person as a leader, because they appear moral, yet are then you find out the virtues they promised are all lies. He says "There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men," which in some way actually connects to Machiavelli’s belief about morals and how one should appear moral but actually be the opposite (Thoreau 280).

In conclusion Machiavelli and Thoreau believe you should follow morals, however Machiavelli’s thoughts of morals are contradicting, while Thoreau believes that deep down men do not act morally right.

(492 words)

Proposal bullet list:

Proposal bullet list: 

My topic is gun violence, and I think it is appropriate to my audience which is the government. (specifically congress).

Specific? I was very specific and went into detail about specific shootings, and how they really hit close to home.

My audience was specific, it was congress. This is appropriate because I am proposing strengthening gun laws, which rests in the power of the government.

My publishing plan is that I am going to first send my letter to any publishing company, that will most likely publish my writing. Even if I don’t get my work published I am going to send it to the State Government, and then I am going to write a letter to the National Government and see if I get a reply from either of them.

The genre of my argument is a letter to the government, both congress and the state government.

The purpose of my argument was to persuade the Government to create a stronger law that will limit the use of guns in the U.S., in hope to prevent gun violence. I want to end the loss of life from guns among the public in America.

My argument is a proposal, because I am trying to enact change in the issue of guns.
Some of the major claims that I said were: guns take our loved ones, we should value our safety over our rights to hold guns, and we are not safe anywhere today, not even at school.

Pathos: I used pathos when explaining how guns take our loved ones from us. I said that it is extremely hard when you lose someone, and how the pain of losing someone will never entirely go away.

Ethos: I established ethos through my personal experience with losing my grandmother to Pancreatic cancer. I also established ethos when I explained how as a student we are being taught run, hide, or fight drills. I also have a cousin that went to Virginia Tech at the time of the shooting.

Logos: I explained how 70% of homicide victims in 2013 were killed by guns. I also used the examples of shootings like Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech.

Some changes I made to my original was who my audience was. Originally my audience was everyday Americans, however I made my audience more specific to members of the government, especially congress. This helped me to structure my argument and language better for the audience.

Clarity of writing: I was clear with my claims, and what my argument was. Throughout the blog I was very clear with my views against the usage of guns, and I was clear about how the issue can be prevented.

Gun Violence: A Proposal

To whom it should concern,

As you already know gun violence is an issue that has strongly hurt the people of our nation for too long! Guns have taken away the loved ones of more than 70% of all victims killed in homicides in 2013. These people who lost their loved ones have had to deal with the unbearable feeling of losing someone close to you, and even though time will help, their pain will never go away. Just think about if that were someone you knew, someone who you loved, who was suddenly taken away in the blink of an eye by something so simple as a gun? No one deserves to feel that pain, and that is the reason why a change needs to happen.

We can't just sit by as more people are killed, and more of their loved ones have to deal with the terrible feeling of loss just because we are too arrogant to change laws that have existed since the beginning of when our nation was formed. Think about it though, is it really worth sacrificing our safety, the safety of everyone including yourself and the people you love? I certainly don't think there can be any objections to the fact that something must be done, even though many pro-gun people don't want their rights as gun holders to be infringed. The truth is we need to start valuing the safety of the people in our nation, over the rights of gun holders. No one would want to lose someone close to them, so why not fix the gun laws in this country.

Before I get to the solution it is necessary that I introduce a personal story like many others that are out there, and have yet to be heard. If you haven't experienced the loss of a loved one it is like there is a gaping hole in your heart, the pain is unbearable yet nothing helps. Only time can diminish the pain, but in fact the pain will never go away as long as you live. I think it's ridiculous that we have done nothing, even after so many people are having to deal with loss. Frankly the correct word is shame, shame at our stance as a nation in doing nothing to prevent more shootings, and deaths from occurring. If we cannot unite as a nation now to fix something hurting so many of us than how can you say as a member of the government that your work has been to the benefit of the nation as a whole? In my school we have even taken on protecting ourselves with the "run, hide and fight" drills, because there is no other way to protect ourselves. What does this say about our society today, it is like we are just a bunch of animals being sent off to the slaughterhouse waiting for the death that will soon catch up with us. Yes this may be a very depressing statement yet today no one is safer at school, home, or frankly anywhere else.

It is the time, now, not in several years. We have to make it so guns are illegal, and can only be carried by members of law enforcement who have been mentally evaluated. We must strengthen the gun laws of the nation, forget what the NRA or anyone else says about being unconstitutional. Isn't being protected by our government a part of the Constitution? Call me crazy but if I'm the only person who feels that safety should be valued over our right to bear arms, then do nothing. However if the day comes that you ever lose a family member to gun violence, just remember you had the chance to save them, yet for some reason you failed to do so.

Toulmin Analysis of Gun Violence Ethos blog:

The major claims that I stated in my blog were: gun violence takes many of our loved ones from us, also it is not an issue that is occurring somewhere else, in fact it occurs close to home. Gun violence has caused the deaths of peoples children, friends, and other loved ones as for example the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, which occurred very close to home, only about a half hour away from Norwalk. Another major claim was we have done little to stop the issue of gun violence, and we should strengthen gun laws, make guns banned altogether from the general public, and value safety over leisure (hunting especially). Even though many lives have been lost to guns, we have failed to do anything to atleast strengthen the gun laws in the nation. Banning guns from the general public would be most effective because it would make it so only police can have guns therefore limiting the ability to even obtain a gun. We should begin valuing our safety over leisure even though many people may think it infringes on their rights, in the end it will protect us all, because right now we are not safe anywhere from gun violence especially at school. Think about your families!

The data that I used to support my claims were the Virginia Tech, and the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. I was lacking the usage of quantitative data however but if i add numbers to my argument then it will make it a lot more effective. I could definitely add the number of people that are killed yearly due to gun violence, and how the people killed are of all ages and races, not just one group of people. By doing this it will help me show how gun violence affects people everywhere across the country, which will in the end make it easier for the reader to accept my argument. 

The warrants that I used in my blog were: that gun violence kills people which is bad, also we have not done anything to stop gun violence which is allowing it to keep occurring. Another warrant that I used in my blog was it is better to be safe than to worry about a law affecting leisure. The backing that I used in my blog was the shooting at sandy hook, and the shooting at Virginia tech. I also used my personal experience with losing my grandmother to Pancreatic Cancer. I also used the fact that many Americans have lost loved ones to gun violence, and how it is apart of human nature to feel sad at the loss of life as backing for my claims.

The rebuttal that I used for my blog was that i addressed the objections that gun violence does not occur anywhere by saying that it can, and does happen anywhere especially when I described how Sandy Hook is very close to Norwalk, and how if a shooting could happen there, what is preventing one from happening in Norwalk. Another rebuttal is that strengthening gun laws infringes on the rights of Americans, by saying that it is better to value our safety over leisure because any of us could have been the people to lose loved ones to guns. If we strengthen gun laws we will be helping to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

Some examples of qualifiers that I used throughout my blog were even though, especially, anyone, if, anywhere, yet, then, and more. By using these qualifiers I helped to acknowledge the limitations to my argument, which will make the reader more open to accept what I have to say. However I think I should use more qualifiers like few, one might argue especially when I talk about banning guns among the general public. I think that by doing this it will make my argument even more effective.

Social change: "Audience Brainstorming"

Possible Audiences: 

• People who buy guns
• Law enforcement (Police, etc.)
• National Government (the legislative and executive branches)
• Parents
• State Governments
• People who have lost loved ones to gun violence
• All races/genders

Three best audiences: 

• People who have lost loved ones to gun violence: The reason why people who have lost loved ones to gun violence would be a good audience is because they can relate to what my argument is, and they probably have the same thoughts as I do on the issue against guns in this country. By appealing to this audience a pro would be that they probably have more of a probability to agree with me because they have personally been affected by gun violence. Another pro would be that they would be more accepting to my solution to the issue than most other American's because they have been personally affected by guns. A con would be that I would have to be very careful with what I say, and how I word my claims so that I don't offend anyone who has personally lost someone to guns. 

• Law enforcement: Law enforcement would be a good audience to address because they may be more accepting of my argument, especially because of the fact that making guns illegal for anyone besides law enforcement should decrease the number of shootings yearly significantly. Police officers especially would benefit from this because there would no longer be the significant threat of being shot and killed on the job, which would give police officers more assurance when it comes to safety. A con of addressing law enforcement as an audience would be that I have to be very specific in my claims and provide sufficient evidence to how mental screening for all police and military people will benefit the country. Many law enforcement individuals may not like the fact that everyone would have to be mentally screened in order to be able to obtain a gun. 

• National Government: The reason why the National Government would be a good audience for my argument is because the they have the power to pass national laws that everyone must abide to. This would be a good way to actually get some form of legislation passed rather than having to address the people in order for them to take action and bring the issue to the government. If I directly address the government especially congress, then my argument would be a lot easier to actually influence some kind of change. The con to this is that I would have to create a very strong argument backed by a lot of sufficient evidence while using a lot of vocabulary to fit the high education of members of congress. I would also have to come up with a very distinct solution that is actually possible, and makes sense.

The Best: 

• The best audience would probably be the National Government because people who have lost loved ones to gun violence are already very likely to accept my argument. Also law enforcement follows the laws that the government creates, so the National Government would be a better audience in that it would be more effective. However I have to create a solution that is very possible and not far fetched from what can actually work well in significantly decreasing the number of guns in the country, and increasing the amount of mental health screenings. 

Blog #5: Applying ethos

       Gun violence has taken many of our loved ones. If you have ever experienced the loss of a loved one then you know that it is like there is a gaping whole in your heart that cannot be fixed. Only time can heal the pain. No, I have personally not lost any family members to gun violence, but I, like many people who have lost loved ones to gun violence, have had to experience the feeling of loss. I cannot lie that the type of loss is not even on the same page as losing someone to gun violence, which usually tends to be sporadic and random. People whose fate was decided by gun violence, if it even seems right to say so. I have had to deal with the loss of my grandmother to pancreatic cancer about a year ago. The pain was unbearable and still has not entirely gone away, and frankly it never will. The same goes for people who lose their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, cousins, husbands, and wives to guns. No one, and nothing can ever bring them back, and healing can only diminish the pain, however, the pain will never go away. Just think about a time when you lost a loved one who was close to you.

The fact that a shooting like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December occurred so close to home has significantly shaped my life as a student today, especially because of the close proximity to Newtown. I have seen major changes to the system such as the new "Run, hide, and fight" drills, in which students like me are now taught how to protect themselves from a shooter. What does this say about our society today, have we really ignored the issue so much that now our own protection is all on us; children, parents, anyone to protect ourselves? What happened to the beliefs of police officers keeping us safe from the bad guys, whats the point in even having police today if we are just putting individual protection on individuals, especially students?

I also personally know a family member who was a student at Virginia Tech, at the time of the shooting. He personally knew several people who were killed. Even though I don't know the victims, it really hit home at the fact that one of my close relatives knew them. It really changes how you feel about gun violence. That is why we must view gun violence as something affecting all of us because anyone, anywhere is under the threat, and we can't keep ignoring this fact, even though it may be very disturbing to think about. 
 

     It is a part of human nature to feel sad from the loss of life, and no matter what way life is taken it does not change. We as human beings hate losing loved ones, and the feeling of being alone, yet we have done little to stop the issue of gun violence. If we hate the feeling of loss, then why do we just stand by as more shootings occur, and more loved ones lives are taken from their families and friends?It is time for a change. We must improve the issue of gun violence by passing stronger laws that limit the use of guns, or ban them all together for the general public. Even though people may say that it is a part of our rights as citizens to have the right to bear arms, however is it really worth the threat of loss that we have to deal with for the rest of our lives? The answer is no, it is not worth the loss. Just think about it, what if that were one of your loved ones, if you could do anything to protect them wouldn't you do it? The solution is to ban the use of guns in our society, even though this may infringe on our rights as citizens to bear arms, don't we also have the right to be safe and protected in our own communities. I don't know about you but I certainly value safety over leisure.

Blog #4: Applying pathos

Gun Violence: 

Guns for sale at a Houston, Tx. gun show, 2007. Photo: Flickr/M Glasgow

The highlight of my social issue is guns; they are commonly thought of as toys to kids or leisure to some adults. Some people enjoy the feel of shooting guns, this is very evident in our society today with Nerf guns, paint ball, video games, all of which contain guns. I cannot deny that I enjoy my amount of Call of Duty, and using BB guns, but most of the time I fail to notice what I am actually doing, and how i'm enjoying the violence of these games. The reality and concept of these games themselves is usually unthought of, yet peoples lives are taken every day by the concept of guns that we find pleasure with.  Maybe the feelings of leisure when it comes to guns today, is the reason for gun violence in our country. Although they may be thought of differently by people there is one true definition of a gun; a weapon that is made to kill. The sole purpose for a gun is to kill, so how is is that people tend to view them as if they were only toys, made to give us some sort of joy or happiness. The fact is guns do the opposite. Guns take lives of people of all ages, and from all walks of life. Innocent children, friends, family members, loved ones are all the people that guns take from us. Yet even though something as simple as a gun can be more restrictively controlled under gun laws for some reason it remains untouched. Even though hearts have been broken, and lives taken from our community we have done little to improve it. Gun violence which has taken the lives of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary, kids that were so excited for Christmas break and enjoying the holidays with their families, went to school that day, and never returned home to their families. The shooting at Virginia tech that left 32 students and staff members brutally shot while just trying to learn in class. The Aurora, Colorado shooting at a movie theater that left 12 people dead, people including children who were just trying to enjoy a movie. The fact is that gun violence has taken too many lives, how many more people have to die before some change occurs. We know that gun violence exists, and we know of the possibilities for it to occur anywhere yet we have ceased to do anything about gun laws in this nation. Don't let the dead have died in vein, the answer to this problem is in our hands. Just think about it; what if it were you're loved one who were taken from you due to gun violence? Would you just sit behind and do nothing about gun violence?

Blog #3

"Guilt, you may be thinking warily. Isn't that what we're supposed to feel? But guilt doesn't go anywhere near far enough;the appropriate emotion is shame-shame at our own dependency, in this case, on the underpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on-when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently-then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The 'working poor,' as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else. As Gail, one of my restaurant coworkers put it, 'you give and you give (Ehrenreich, 221)."

Guns, the cause of 85 deaths per day. Do you know anyone killed due to gun violence? Hunting, and leisure are no excuse for guns; innocent kids, fathers, mothers, family members-the people we love, taken from us, taken by guns you want for leisure. When you know someone personally whose life was taken from you, for sure, the pain never goes away even though time may pass and people may forget-you will always remember the person you lost, how a gun could ruin a life in the blink of an eye, a tragedy, tearing you apart. It's "gun violence," that has ruined many lives, and continues to take the lives of our loved ones. In two years it has killed more than the 58,000 American's who died in the Vietnam War; less men who were fighting on the front line died than here in our country; how shocking that gun violence could kill so many innocent people here in America. Due to gun violence we are not safer at school than anywhere else, yet it is ignored, little change has occurred. How sad, today many fail to notice "a loss is a loss."

Facts from:
"Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts." Law Center to Prevent Gun     Violence RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2013.

Blog #2 Issues

Economical: 

• Gas prices are way too high, and they continue to rise. 
• Minimum wage is too low for the high pricing in today's market.
• Huge gap between the rich and the poor.
• High inflation 
• Most products sold in the U.S. are made overseas. 
• Not enough jobs in the U.S. to decrease unemployment significantly.
• International air fare is very expensive.
• There are taxes for almost everything: Social security, property taxes, federal income, etc..
• Low income housing is too expensive for low income workers. 

Social: 

• Bullying 
• Racism/racial discrimination
• Sexual discrimination
• Gun violence
• Terrorism
• Gang violence
• Drunk Driving

Education: 

• Students that don't have any interest in being in school, and just complain all the time. 
• People standing and talking in the middle of the hallways. 
• Students having full conversations on their phones during class. 
• Kids chewing gum and sticking it under desks, and tables. 
• People ripping off the doors of stalls, and toilet seats off of toilets. 
• Never any paper towels in the bathrooms. 
• Really odd things being food in the bathrooms such as animals, and writing on the walls. 
• Tenure, especially for teachers who are absolutely terrible. 
• No child left behind: slowing the advancement of education in the U.S. 
• U.S. ranked 17th in global education (really sad)
• Lack of discipline in many classrooms. Kids can be like animals.
• lack of materials in schools: paper, art supplies.
• lack of funding for extra curricular activities; most money is raised only through volunteering. 

Government: 

• Run by a bunch of rich men and women. (The rich control the world!)
• Very hard to pass bills, and agree upon action because both parties cannot agree with one another. 

College: 

• Tuition is very expensive. 
• You have to pay just to fill out an application. 
• You have to be a good student, involved in sports, clubs, volunteering and as much as you can possibly do just to get into a good college. 

Clothing: 

• People wearing shredded clothes that look like rags more than an outfit. 
• Sagging pants
• Clothes that are too tight. 
• Clothes that show almost every single amount of skin that can possibly be shown.
• People wearing clothes just to look cool rather than be comfortable. 

The history of Joseph

I personally cannot complain that the name Joseph is pretty great to have as a name. After all there are three ways I can say my name; Joe, Joey, Joseph. Who else can do that? Even though most famous Joseph's are important because of their contributions to religion, there is also Joseph A. Bank, Joseph Stalin, Joseph Gordon Levitt. All very different from a clothing store, to a communist dictator, to Robin from Batman. What other name is famous for so many different reasons besides Joseph?

Joseph; very commonly known as a saint name. The name Joseph comes from the Hebrew name Yosef meaning "God shall add another son." Joseph was the name of the father of Jesus in the Bible. Joseph Son of Jacob is very well known in the Hebrew scripture, and the Quran as liberator of the Isrealites from Egypt. Joseph of Arithmea was believed to have brought the holy grail to Great Britain a very long time ago. As you can tell Joseph's have been very important throughout history. My name, very religious throughout history has brought up stereotypes about all Josephs, and that naming your child Joseph will make them suddenly a perfect little angel. I'm not going to argue that sometimes it has its benefits, no one is perfect including me Joseph!

Now my last name; Lacovara ,not Lacovera, or LaCovara. The way it is pronounced is LA-CO-VAH-RA. Bottom line it is not as hard to pronounce, as it may seem. The name Lacovara is Italian, and originates from the midieval Greek surname Lagodares or "Leveret". Which if you didn't know "Leveret" is a young hare (tiny animal similar to a rabbit, but with longer ears). I always liked rabbits but I didn't know that my last name had any relation. Maybe that's why I like carrots so much? Well anyway, my Lacovara ancestors originated from the town of San Mauro Forte, in the province of Basilicata, Italy. If you have never seen pictures of San Mauro Forte it is a small village on top of a giant hill in the middle of the mountains (photo above). I'm not 100% sure but my ancestors must have been in incredible shape from walking up and down the hill all day from home to wheat farm. I have always loved carbs, now I know that my ancestors did too.

Some of my ancestors some how ended up on a boat headed for Great Britain while others headed to the U.S. While in the UK they among with many other immigrants worked in coal mines, and helped to build the British rail roads. The relatives who ended up in the U.S. lived in Brooklyn, New York among with many other immigrants. They also worked on the railroads, and faced many low paying jobs.

Joseph has been a very popular name throughout history with the number of Joseph's in the U.S. peaking in the 1910's when there were 13, 160 per million babies. Yet the number of Joseph's in the U.S. has been decreasing ever since. My Grandfather's name was Joseph, my dad's name is Joseph, and My name is Joseph, so yeah, it can be pretty confusing especially with mail, but I wouldn't change my name for the world. I'm proud to say that I'm Joseph Lacovara, even though I'm #3.