Visual Rehtoric Rewrite- wildwood

End Family Fire

0:00 – 0:02

The video opens up on a cartoon train, one that looks like on a child television show. The camera frame is just the cartoon, so the viewer does not know whether or not the show is the entire video or if it is in fact a television show, even though it shows a glare. Then on the next second of the video, it shows a child, a little boy in pajamas, and what is assumed is his father. The director is trying to have an emotional play to families, if a father is watching this ad it is extremely relatable. The middle-class is the most populated class in the country, meaning there is a reasonable chance that a middle-class father is watching this ad. His father is wearing boots, jeans and a long-sleeved shirt, meaning he could be going to work or coming from work. Again, the working class dominates this country and that is more relatable. It does appear to be morning due to the child in pajamas and the sun looks like it is rising. The son could be watching his morning cartoons. The house is clean and well kept, besides the toys on the ground, it appears as a normal middle-class suburban household. The couch cushion in on the ground which seems odd, and there is a normal pillow sitting on top of it. Could mean the father slept there last night, or the young boy sits there and watches his morning cartoons. The whole first two seconds are extremely relatable with a normal middle-class family and targets the emotional side of the viewer. A wife could see that as her husband and son, a father could see that as him and his son. The lighting is bright, causing the viewers to feel at ease and comfortable with the setting. If the lighting was dim and the sun was not out, it could give the viewer an uneasy feeling.

0:02 – 0:05

Father in a collar shirt, it is in fact daytime because there are windows in the background. Dad is clean shaven and could be headed to work. He suprised his son and started playing with him as he was watching cartoons. The pillow on the ground indicates some sort of family disfunction. The father could be sleeping on the couch because his significant other and him are going through a rough patch in the relationship. Families in America fight and that thought just makes the scene more relatable. Did not observe any family pictures either on the television stand or hanging up in the dining room, leads the viewer to believe the house is more sterile than it appears with the toys laying out on the floor. Although the boy seems to be loved from the affection he is being shown from his father and the endless number of toys he has, no family pictures signifies a sterile house like feel instead of a warm welcoming home.

0:05 – 0:09

The father got off his child, he said goodbye. Father must be preparing for work for the day. Smaller skateboard by the door, probably the boys skateboard. Only one skateboard so more than likely an only child or a much older or younger sibling.

0:09 – 0:12

The boy lays on the floor after his father walks away and seems like he is pondering something. Possibly wanting to ask the father a question, but in reference to what? The father started walking over to the kitchen. Older model residence due to the dark wood accents and trim around windows and doorframes, but definitely not outdated. Two used cups on the counter and two used bowls, meaning they already ate breakfast. Father going over to clean the dishes. The cups indicate the wife being home, but she is nowhere to be found around the house.

0:12 – 0:16

Father rolling his sleeves up and walking over to the dishes to start cleaning them. Pink flowers in the background on the kitchen table, still look alive and new. Brought them home for his wife who he is currently fighting with in an attempt to make amends. On the table with the dirty dishes, there is a knife within reach of the boy, signifying danger in his young life.

0:16 – 0:19

Little boy asks to play with father’s gun. Little standing by the front door asking the question, clean house with a toy tank by the skateboard. Boy likes guns and likes violence. The boy does not appear to be ready for school even though he is of age, so most likely a weekend, summer, or a holiday. On the right of the screen, on the counter, there is a box of pancake mix. Father made pancakes for breakfast but there are also two bowls on the kitchen counter and no plates. Possibly made the pancakes for his wife while she is still in bed and she still has the dirty dishes still in bed.

0:19 – 0:25

Father and son having a conversation, the father seems surprised by what the boy is saying even though he is standing in the same spot. The camera is close on the boy when he first speaks, as if what he is saying is the whole purpose of the ad, and then when it cuts back onto the boy after the dad, it is a much broader span. The boy then shrugs his shoulders with saying nothing. The broader span signifies it could be a much larger issue being talked about and that it does not only pertain to this single middle-class family.

0:25 – 0:30

The father is pouring his glass of coffee but there is another cup next to the coffee machine. He is not pouring it for some reason even though it is being used because it is a clean cup sitting next to the coffee machine.

 

 

Research paper – wildwood

Abuse from the Executive

The relationship between the president and the people is transcendent. They are connected unlike any other politician, with the exception of the vice president, not only because that is the only contest that ballots are cast nation-wide, because the office is the face of the government, whether policies and legislation passed, cast a shadow of a good or bad light. The President has responsibilities that differ from other politicians because they need to connect on all levels for the relationship to work, and for the president to not be hated by the general public. The Presidency requires statesmanship, public speaking, and cooperation between all parties. The office is the go-to for citizens and their issues.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” George Washingtonuttered those words during his farewell address to the people of the United States, forewarning the nation that political parties has the potential to tear this nation apart at the seams. President Washington’s theory was that political parties would undermine the foundations that people were killed over when the founding fathers were putting the framework in place. Citizens thinking would differ from one stance to another, solely based on the fact that their party aligns with thinking, even if you don’t. People would blindly vote with their party which would impede the free-thinking country that the United States is destined to be.

The founding fathers needed a new way of thinking and needed it quick. They needed concepts such as leadership, who would run the government, how they would run the government, how citizens would be appointed to positions, and what powers those officials would have when elevated in such places. One of the most important and momentous statute that was implemented was the separation of powers. The separation of powers or checks and balances as they are more commonly referred too, allows the three branches of government, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, to operate freely within their respective constraints granted by the Constitution. More importantly, the Second Article defines where all branches must pull back regulation due to potential interference with other branches.  Granted to the leader of the Executive Branch, an extremely vague proclamation giving the President the sole power to correct any legislation that they do not feel best fits the people of the United States. The decree is known as an Executive Order and the President himself is the solitary owner of the ability to use such order. Executive Orders, unlike memorandums, cannot exceed the cost to the tax payer of one hundred million dollars. Executive orders are required to be posted to the Federal Register, making them easier to track. An executive order is not clearly defined in the Constitution, or any other official document, but is only known as ensuring the president “…take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Each major party has a skewed interpretation of the text, favoring the laws they or their base want passed, which overall does not favor bi-partisan lawmaking.

The second article, although giving the American people the most ambiguous definition, gives us the clearest text related to the Executive Orders by stating, “…executive order can be used to execute a power the commander in chief already has. It can’t be used to give the presidency new powers.” Executive orders while vague in every definition are quite restrictive; the president cannot expand his role within the government despite the scope of broadness used in the constitution. All orders while not needing approval of Congress or other branches have to go through many stipulations in order to actually be “executed” or put in place. Every executive order is subject to scrutiny from the supreme court and frankly, the entirety of the country. The executive order is not necessarily total and final and can be overturned by Congress or deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. The President also has the ability to veto Congress if he feels that a law which was passed does not best serve the country. If a law was passed conventionally through Congress, by whipping the proper number of votes together and receiving the majority of the “yay” vote, the President can veto said law very easily by not signing off when it comes to his desk for its final sign off. Just as the President can veto, Congress can overturn the Executive Orders with 2/3 majority of the vote. 2/3 majority of the vote seems very possible to the novice politician because Congress is a group of elected men and women who run their campaigns on the promise of togetherness and teamwork, but when it comes down to it, politicians are in it for themselves and remain focused on reelection. The rarity of overturning an executive order through the House and Senate is due to the non-cohesiveness of the body of the Congress and the “Washington congestion” that is so widely spoken about but not truly addressed.

Other branches oversee one another, to watch over the government and not allow one body who governs this nation to become too strong. In the 1800’s Andrew Jackson cleaned house and relieved all government employees from their duties and replaced them with new, like-minded men whose beliefs aligned with his thinking. Daniel Webster, a politician who was elected to The House and later the Senate, was staunchly against President Jacksons order and said, “The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.” Webster feared that the founding father’s idea of keeping power hungry officials at bay was quickly unraveling and that the President would slowly pick away and see what would be allowed until more radical orders would be accepted by the courts and Congress. Around the same time as when Andrew Jackson was replacing his government with his newly appointed workers, President Lincoln did not fear that Jackson overstepped the boundaries granted to him by the Constitution. President Lincoln did fear that one day Caesarian dangers could be the downfall to the republic if overstepping in the Executive branch were to happen too often and continued to be accepted by the public. Lincoln stated “…intoxication with their own supremacy…” in fright that the duly elected President could become so self-absorbed and power hungry that they sometimes overstep their roles and not always get caught and reeled back into their boundaries.

For generations, political leaders as well as the general public kept tabs on the President, making sure he does not impede on other officials and violates the constitution by issuing an unconstitutional Executive Order. If the President does overstep their boundary, there are steps set in place to either correct or revoke the political action set forth, ensuring the boundaries are respected.

Bill Clinton, in 1992, was elected to the highest office in the land, the President of the Unites States after defeating the incumbent two term Vice President, George H.W. Bush. While elevated to the role of President, President Clinton issued254 Executive Orders during his presidency and in 1995, he passed the controversial Executive Order 12954. EO 12954 was an order barring the federal government from entering into contracts with contractors who hired permanent workers for striking employees. President Clinton understood the unions and that they band together at times of distress, to use striking as an effective tool in an attempt to obtain better working conditions or represent their mistreatment. This kind of backing of the unions is unprecedented because Federal Contracts were always a safe bet for contractors when in desperate need of a contract. Federal contracts could range anywhere from a couple thousands of dollars, all the way to $43 billion dollars and anywhere in between, and if your company happened to hire replacement workers just to fulfill that contract, then that offer will become void, possibly causing a substantial loss for the bidding company. President Clintons driving force behind the order was to ensure the productivity of the federal government remains at peak levels and should not be affected by the relationship between the employer and employee.

Unfortunately for President Clinton, EO 12954 was nullified by the 104thCongress when Congressman William Goodling introduced resolution 1176. HR 1176 stated, “…the passage of EO 12954 seriously diminished the system of collective bargaining, which was an effective tool of unions and other blue-collar groups.” Both sides of the aisle agreed with the resolution because the balance of interests and risks between labor and their management is a fine line that should not be hindered or tampered with by a third party.

The nullification of EO 12954 was not the first time an executive order has been overturned on the grounds of it being unconstitutional or overreaching. In 1952 President Truman issued EO 1034 when he took control of the steel mills in an attempt to prevent the labor strikes from affecting the output of the nation’s most important good. The executive order was struck down from the courts shortly after its’ introduction, due to the executive branch overstepping into the legislative branch. The courts said, in their decision to nullify EO 1034 that executive orders must stem from an act of Congress or the Constitution itself, giving more clarity on how executive orders can be utilized legally. Ever since the revocation of EO 1034, Presidents are more likely to use a lot of the same verbiage from previous successful executive orders. The Clinton administration did not attempt to pass legislation the conventional way yet escalated to the use of the executive order in a short amount of time. If President Clinton thought he could get the legislation passed by going through the house and senate, why did he not go to the chambers of the legislative branch and present his case in a clear-cut argument? The fact that if the President is not a good enough statesman, if he lacks negotiation skills or has nothing to barter in a trade with other congressmen, they are forced to utilize the executive order to show to the people that they are at the very minimum, exasperating all options to further their parties’ interests.

When Congress or the Supreme deem it necessary to intervene in the passage of an Executive Order, it is not taken lightly by the rest of the government or the President himself. The body of the government who wishes to see the order revoked must have clear and concise reasoning for why they feel the order is either unconstitutional or an act of overstepping. The White House did not do much to combat the fact that the Presidents Executive Order was revoked, instead they turned to the means of conventional legislation in the House and Senate to get more protections for the union employees.

Let’s remember, the sole purpose of executive orders is for the President to act in the good will of the American people and to ensure the Constitution is being upheld faithfully. At what point do Presidents take advantage of the privilege and use it without being blind to partisanship? Upholding the Constitution should automatically mean for the good of the nation, but nowadays it seems like orders are for the good of the party. Did President Clinton know executive order 12954 was going to be shot down shortly after introduction? Did he want to show the unions he stands with the workers? President Clinton would’ve collected millions of votes if the unions backed him. The election was only a year or so out when the order was issued and if he could get the backing from the very wealthy, powerful and enormous labor unions across the country, he would’ve been in a great position. President Clinton, like every President before and after him, sworn under oath to uphold the ways of the country set in place by the founding fathers and agreed to do so. If the President starts waving the executive order power around and uses it solely to forward their agenda, did the founding fathers really set their predecessors up for success?

If an executive order was viewed on by the public as a partisan tool for either party to gain more seats in the house, to win more elections, to please a wealthy donor who supports their super pac, can it really be overturned if it was not deemed unconstitutional? Executive order 12954 wasn’t overturned because President Clinton was trying to please potential voters, it wasn’t turned over because he basically abused a power bestowed to him to gain votes, it was overturned because it was unconstitutional. That’s it. If it wasn’t deemed unconstitutional, the order would likely be in place to this day and President Clinton would have perhaps won the 1996 election by even a larger margin than he originally did.

There is no line whether or not an executive order was issued due to partisanship or for the good of the country, but the courts and elected officials are tasked with the responsibility to ensure the President carries out the will of the people. When President Obama was in office, executive orders were in the forefront due to his use of the policy. People do not see the difference between executive orders and executive actions, so naturally they though the terms were on in the same and accused him of abusing the power. Because President Obama did not have any of his executive orders overturned, does that mean he wasn’t abusive to the privilege?

President Obama’s executive order 13535, signed in March of 2010, reinforced the administration’s commitment to restrict federal funding of abortion. The order was signed after several pro-life democrats advised the president that they will not support his massive overhaul of the nation’s health care system if he did not take major steps to strengthen the language of the restriction of federal funds for abortion. Executive order 13535 was a show of commitment from Obama to democrats in the house that he is willing to work with his party, only if they are willing to work with him to pass historic legislation that is on the horizon. An executive order regarding abortion funding was not overturned, but an order effecting government agencies and which companies are granted contracts was nullified for being unconstitutional. President Obama used the executive order policy to advance his agenda, to please sitting politicians so they will vote his way when he introduces the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which affects every single American. Obamacare makes it mandatory for Americans who don’t have healthcare for more than three months, to be taxed at a penalty of 2.5% of your annual income. If executive order 13535 had never been passed, who knows if President Obama would’ve had enough votes to pass Obamacare.

Executive orders were never meant for Presidents to use as a bargaining chip, to give favors to other congressmen and senators in an attempt to get legislation passed that their constituents would like to see passed. The validity of the executive order is deteriorating, it is becoming a propaganda tool of each side of the aisle. When one party uses it, the other side will call it an abuse of power and demand the criteria to issue one it to be more scrutinized or completely done away with all together. The media in modern day politics is rarely unbiased, and either supports or creates a divide with any agenda, regardless of political preference. The premise of an honest government who fails to lie and succeeds in telling the truth is watered down and virtually non-existent with back door deals and him or her only looking out for themselves, making sure they always win the next election.

 

White Pages- Wildwood

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=51072

An unbiased source is always the best source as we have here. This post delves deep into the history of executive order 12954, written by President Clinton in 1995 that was overturned by the Supreme Court for unconstitutional motives. This source gives all details regarding EO 12954 and puts the Secretary of Labor on the forefront, putting them in charge of enforcing the department to abide by the order. The order allows the secretary to terminate the contract for convenience, but the department head may write to the secretary and explain why the workers were replaced, pleading the case.

http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/old-site/InfoByTopic/Reform/Reform_08_12.04.ExecutiveOrders.htm

This source describes where the executive powers come from within the constitution, which is Article 2 section 1, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Also states that there is no explicit text giving the President the executive order privilege. It hits on the two overturned Executive Orders, EO 1034 which was written by Truman, placing the nations steel mills in control of the government to prevent labor strikes to affect the output of one of the nation’s most important good.  The order was also overturned because it was determined that it overstepped the executive branch and into the legislation branch. EO 12954 is the topic of my thesis, is when Bill Clinton in 1995 attempted to bar the secretary to not allow any federal contracts to be issued to any organization that hires replacement employees. Executive order, when issued, normally follow the same language as previous orders to reiterate or revamp the previous directive.

 

http://prospect.org/article/power-act-0

More discussion on Truman’s executive order when he attempted to the seize the steel mills in 1952 and how the courts rules that the order must stem from an act of congress or the constitution itself. That ruling is giving a shape to the free forming executive power and was the only writing thus far regarding limits of executive power. The procurement act of 1949 allows the president and his subordinates to make purchases for the executive branch. Speaks more about different executive orders throughout the years by various different presidents. More recently George W. Bush issued an order requiring federals organization that entered into a contract with the government to utilize electronic employment verification to ensure the workers are legal.

Any White Paper note about a source that promotes a specific political agenda should acknowledge that fact: The American Prospect’s mission is summed up in the phrase “liberal intelligence” that runs under the logo on the magazine’s cover. We aim to advance liberal and progressive goals through reporting, analysis, and debate about today’s realities and tomorrow’s possibilities.

 

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/heritage-explains/executive-orders

The quote from this article speaks volumes and really hammers home what an executive order is. It states the president does in fact have limits on their usage of the order, but does not give exact parameters, much like in reality where there is no specific text holding the president from issuing orders to effect whichever way of life they wish. This piece also hits on another important line that is common when scouring the internet for articles related to the executive orders, it comes from Article 2 of the Constitution when it defines the role of the President and within the article it states, “…take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This article is interesting because it states that congress has little authority to limit an executive order. Goes into speak about President Clintons executive order and how the federal courts struck it down claiming it exceeded the scope of the presidency. Directly charges the separation of powers as a way to limit the orders coming from the President and acknowledges that the hostility is present. A very useful timeline of famous executive orders is listed with a very brief summary of them. Obama issued the executive order giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, and when the courts stepped in at the state’s request, it temporary halted the order. The order from President Obama is still subject to review of the courts for a long time to come. Health care and gun control were the focuses of President Obamas executive orders and critics claimed he took the easy way out after failing to get laws passed the conventional way. So it brings up the ultimate question of using executive orders if the president is not a good enough politician or statesman.

 

 

https://share.america.gov/how-u-s-presidents-have-used-executive-orders/

This brief article brings up a topic of an executive compared to a memorandum. The stark differences are that the memorandums do not need to be published in the Federal Register unlike the Executive Orders. If the cost of the memorandum exceeds $100 million, then it needs to be released. If not, like every Executive Order passed regardless of the price, the cost needs to be disclosed.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cheat-sheet-executive-orders-memorandums-proclamations

Executive action is described as a catch all term used for any action taken by the president, including executive orders. Memorandums are much harder to track because they do not have to be submitted to the Federal Register. This source has all of the numbers of which president had the most to least executive orders and categorized by year.

 

https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/5.htm

This short and sweet article explains how the Congress could override the President and how the President can override Congress. The President can overrule Congress with a veto but if 2/3 majority of Congress wants to overturn the veto, keeping their legislation moving, then they have that authority. The most common time this comes to surface is when passing budgets. The President and his cabinet are tasked with creating the ideas and also tasked with getting it passed, but of course Congress could vote against. This theory creates gridlock when trying to pass new legislation, so the President has the power to attempt to vote the Congress members out. Truman did so when he was having a difficult time passing any legislation through the house. He campaigned around the country in an attempt to sway voters to call for new Congressmen, which worked.

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt163/html/CRPT-104hrpt163.htm

This piece is the legislation that the 104thcongress passed to nullify Executive Order 12954, prohibiting Federal contractors from entering into contracts over $100,000 who hire permanent replacements for striking employees. William Goodling introduced HR 1176 to the body with an initial cosponsor ship of 29 members, but the day it was ratified, had a sponsorship of 70 members. There had been many hearings in past congresses protecting employers from hiring permanent replacements, until President Clinton introduced EO 12954. There had only been one hearing in the house, heard before the Committee of Economic and Educational Opportunities membership, solely based around the issues raised by HR 1176. The HR bill claimed that the passage of EO 12954 seriously diminished the system of collective bargaining. The foundation is the balancing of the interests and risks between labor and management, so that both parties could agree and move forward from contracts.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-obamacare-the-aca-and-what-you-need-to-know-3306065

This article describes Obamacare, which was deemed legal through the eyes of the supreme court, which effected about every American. Obamacare requires citizens to have healthcare for 9 out of the 12 months, and if not, you are taxed at 2.5% of your income. That one part of Obamacare alone effects the entire country including people who did not vote for the act to pass. Regardless of how you feel or your political preferences, you would now be mandated to pay the extra tax if you are without healthcare for some time out of the year.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/keeping-your-health-plan/

This article dives into the truth behind what democrats said during the process of getting Obamacare into law. Obama said families who were happy with their doctors and providers could keep their coverage. In fact, all democrats, in an attempt to appeal to the public, stated that allowing families to keep their doctors, would be their number one concern. Before Obamacare was even written into law, the dialogue did not demand employers to keep their current plan and allowed them to drop or change plans at will. Roughly 10 million people who would normally be covered by employer provided plans would no longer be offered coverage under one of the proposals. Cost effective plans would no longer be legal due to the new minimum requirements for all plans.  “Americans who purchase such plans on the individual insurance market have been receiving notices that their current plans will no longer be offered after this year…” which is the opposite of what the democratic leaders stated.

 

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/daniel_webster_105892?src=t_executive_power

“The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.” Said by Daniel Webster, a politician elected to The House in the early 1800’s and later elected to the Senate. President Andrew Jackson fired over 2,000 government employees during his tenure and replaced all officials with like-minded men whose beliefs aligned with his thinking. Daniel Webster was staunchly against what the President did and feared that it could set a new precedent for generations to come. Webster believed

 

“…intoxication with their own supremacy…” -President Lincoln when discussing Caesarian dangers to the republic if overstepping continues to be accepted by the general public. Leaders who run on and get elected to President become so self-absorbed and power hungry that they sometimes overstep their roles and not always get caught.

 

https://www.healthinsurance.com/Article/FullArticle?a=183628

The article explains how President Obama helped his Affordable Healthcare legislation get through the house even though many politicians did not agree on it. Obama utilized his executive order privilege to protect certain statues currently written into law regarding Abortion. Executive orders not only shows that the President can force their will onto the citizens with the simple order, but can gain the votes of their counterparts in Congress by a sort of give and take. The President can give the majority leader something they want or something that will make that politicians constituents happy, in exchange for a vote in the Presidents favor.

Grammar Exercise- wildwood

If a primary caretaker has a negative attitude toward their child, it increases the risk that their child will grow up hostile towards others. It’s not just aggression toward others that results from child abuse; a large number of children raised by abusive parents also harm themselves. The reason for this negative behavior is the children do not learn appropriate techniques for handling life’s disappointments. If you aren’t raised with coping skills, you’re more than likely to act ‘inappropriately’ than if you have developed more reasonable approaches. The effect of poor parenting as reported by Dr. Geoffrey Dahmer in “The Bully Papers”, is that everyone gets the child they deserve.

Visual Rhetoric Revision- wildwood

End Family Fire

0:00 – 0:02

The video opens up on a cartoon train, one that looks like on a child television show. The camera frame is just the cartoon, so the viewer does not know whether or not the show is the entire video or if it is in fact a television show, even though it shows a glare. Then on the next second of the video, it shows a child, a little boy in pajamas, and what is assumed is his father. The director is trying to have an emotional play to families, if a father is watching this ad it is extremely relatable. The middle-class is the most populated class in the country, meaning there is a reasonable chance that a middle-class father is watching this ad. His father is wearing boots, jeans and a long-sleeved shirt, meaning he could be going to work or coming from work. Again, the working class dominates this country and that is more relatable. It does appear to be morning due to the child in pajamas and the sun looks like it is rising. The son could be watching his morning cartoons. The house is clean and well kept, besides the toys on the ground, it appears as a normal middle-class suburban household. The couch cushion in on the ground which seems odd, and there is a normal pillow sitting on top of it. Could mean the father slept there last night, or the young boy sits there and watches his morning cartoons. The whole first two seconds are extremely relatable with a normal middle-class family and targets the emotional side of the viewer. A wife could see that as her husband and son, a father could see that as him and his son. The lighting is bright, causing the viewers to feel at ease and comfortable with the setting. If the lighting was dim and the sun was not out, it could give the viewer an uneasy feeling.

0:02 – 0:05

Father in a collar shirt, it is in fact daytime because there are windows in the background. Dad is clean shaven and could be headed to work. He suprised his son and started playing with him as he was watching cartoons. The pillow on the ground indicates some sort of family disfunction. The father could be sleeping on the couch because his significant other and him are going through a rough patch in the relationship. Families in America fight and that thought just makes the scene more relatable. Did not observe any family pictures either on the television stand or hanging up in the dining room, leads the viewer to believe the house is more sterile than it appears with the toys laying out on the floor. Although the boy seems to be loved from the affection he is being shown from his father and the endless number of toys he has, no family pictures signifies a sterile house like feel instead of a warm welcoming home.

0:05 – 0:09

The father got off his child, he said goodbye. Father must be preparing for work for the day. Smaller skateboard by the door, probably the boys skateboard. Only one skateboard so more than likely an only child or a much older or younger sibling.

0:09 – 0:12

The boy lays on the floor after his father walks away and seems like he is pondering something. Possibly wanting to ask the father a question, but in reference to what? The father started walking over to the kitchen. Older model residence due to the dark wood accents and trim around windows and doorframes, but definitely not outdated. Two used cups on the counter and two used bowls, meaning they already ate breakfast. Father going over to clean the dishes. The cups indicate the wife being home, but she is nowhere to be found around the house.

0:12 – 0:16

Father rolling his sleeves up and walking over to the dishes to start cleaning them. Pink flowers in the background on the kitchen table, still look alive and new. Brought them home for his wife who he is currently fighting with in an attempt to make amends. On the table with the dirty dishes, there is a knife within reach of the boy, signifying danger in his young life.

0:16 – 0:19

Little boy asks to play with father’s gun. Little standing by the front door asking the question, clean house with a toy tank by the skateboard. Boy likes guns and likes violence. The boy does not appear to be ready for school even though he is of age, so most likely a weekend, summer, or a holiday. On the right of the screen, on the counter, there is a box of pancake mix. Father made pancakes for breakfast but there are also two bowls on the kitchen counter and no plates. Possibly made the pancakes for his wife while she is still in bed and she still has the dirty dishes still in bed.

0:19 – 0:25

Father and son having a conversation, the father seems surprised by what the boy is saying even though he is standing in the same spot. The camera is close on the boy when he first speaks, as if what he is saying is the whole purpose of the ad, and then when it cuts back onto the boy after the dad, it is a much broader span. The boy then shrugs his shoulders with saying nothing. The broader span signifies it could be a much larger issue being talked about and that it does not only pertain to this single middle-class family.

0:25 – 0:30

The father is pouring his glass of coffee but there is another cup next to the coffee machine. He is not pouring it for some reason even though it is being used because it is a clean cup sitting next to the coffee machine.

Enough about you- wildwood

Money seems to have a big role in our society; we as a society can’t do much or get far if money is not present. Money is valuable in different ways, even when we don’t see it physically. In today’s society we must have faith in the government and in the banking system that our money is being handled in the proper manner; if not, then they would have to hide all of the money under the mattress or around the house. I have no clue what happens in the banks, or how they take care of our money. I always thought money was simple; we either have some or you don’t—that’s it. However, being introduced to this assignment, the Yap Fei, US gold, French francs, Brazilian cruzeros, and debit accounts now seem similar. Someone doesn’t actually see the money being transferred. When someone get paid, they aren’t handed cash, they didn’t receive a physical check, the money’s all directly transferred to someone’s bank account, and they just have to trust that they got more money.

Rebuttal- Wildwood

Checks and balances pertaining to the United States government has a sole purpose of preventing the three branches of the government of gaining too much power which in turn could be the downfall of this country. Within each branch, The Judicial, The Legislative and The Executive are elected officials that, makes the hard decisions for the three hundred million plus citizens which voted them to their respective office. Each branch has a duty to this country whether the responsibility is drafting, enforcing or upholding the law, and just as important is to make sure each branch stays true to their task issued to them by the Constitution. The system, on the surface, seems like it would work smoothly and allow each branch to operate within their ranks and without stepping over toes, but what happens when one of the branches are granted a special veto power to overrule legislation passed by another branch? Is that a violation of checks and balances? Or does that statue, granted to a single elected official better keep the branches of government in check when writing and passing laws?

When a bill gets introduced by a member of the House or Senate, with the hopes of it being written into law, it takes multiple members of each chamber to bring said bill to a final vote. After different actions conducted by the sponsoring members, and usually multiple rewrites, it can be brought to a vote on the House floor. After receiving a majority, the bill then can be sent to the President’s desk for final approval. If the President decides to sign off, then the process is over and that bill is officially signed into law. Now this process could take months and sometimes years from start to finish, and in the end, if the President decides against it, he can veto it, making that bill void. However, if the bill has an unusual amount of support in both chambers, the elected officials could vote to overrule the President’s decision not to sign off on the bill, overriding the veto changing the proposed bill into a law. Veto power is few and far between in the United States Government, it takes at the minimum a 2/3 majority in the House to veto a bill signed off by The President. Just as easy is it is for the President to veto a law, they can also amend any law passed by utilizing Executive Orders.

If the President decides to draft an Executive Order, it could be anything from giving federal employees a half of a day before a federal holiday, all the way to confining all Japanese born U.S. citizens to internment camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and everything in between. Critics of the President using Executive Orders usually have one defense, why does a single man have the power to write their wishes into law without going through proper channels of Congress. Critics think when Presidents use Executive Orders, it undermines the hundreds of elected officials whose job it is to write and pass legislation.

In reality, The President is voted into office by voters nation-wide and not just by voters in certain districts like members of congress are elected. If the incumbent head of the executive branch passes an executive order and his predecessor simply wants it overturned, that order originally passed by the incumbent becomes null and void as quick as the President signs off on the order. When an executive order is signed off on, it has the same powers as a federal law, but federal laws are subject to legal review and scrutiny. When determining whether or not that order passed was unconstitutional or not, the supreme court evaluation includes case law regarding the topic as well as deciding if the order compromises a standing law set forth from the founding fathers.