地 3

今天是11月30日。今天 我吃了早饭。我按照食物金字塔 ( food pyramid , shí wù jīng zì mǎ ) 今天,吃一顿丰盛的早餐。我妈让我蛋,火鸡培根和面包圈。我把它做成了三明治。教堂后,我回家吃午饭 。我吃通心粉，咖喱鸡和布朗尼。巧克力不是我一顿的很大一部分，因为它是一个油/脂肪的食物。然后我去了海地的生日聚会。有很多食物我想尝试。这是很难吃的健康。海天食品有很多油和酱油，这样的食品是不能干的。有很多油。但它是太好。我吃通心粉，土豆沙拉，玉米饼，炸鸡，黑米，鱼炸鸡和土耳其。还有蛋糕，因为它是一个生日派对。这是巧克力。我没有吃足够的水果了！特殊场合使它很难吃的健康。

第 2

今天是11月29日。感恩节之后的一天。我还是满了，我有很多左侧额的。我没有吃早餐，因为我仍然是满的最后一晚。但对于午餐我吃了，更通心粉和奶酪，土豆沙拉和火鸡脖子。我的母亲告诉我，我必须吃什么我已经离开了。我喝了很多蛋酒，因为它是很好的。这是很难根据食物金字塔吃，因为我没有一个平衡点。吃晚饭，我吃了同样的事情，因为我有很多的剩菜。这不是我的典型饮食。这是很难正确地吃，因为我有我的母亲让我完成我了。可能明天我就能吃得更健康。但我真正爱蛋酒。

第 1

今天是11月28日。今天是感恩节。早餐妈妈煮。对于她，我的父亲，我的表哥和我做早餐。她做了盐业输卤鲭鱼。她做了饺子，煮香蕉和蛋酒。我爱盐鲭鱼。这是我最喜欢的。我吃得很晚。因此，我没有吃任何的午餐。在五点，我们去我姑姑家。我们在吃之前等待整个家庭。她煮了很多，我准备吃的。她做了挺举火鸡脖子，土豆沙拉，通心粉和奶酪，咖喱鸡和牛尾。所有的食物，我吃的是美式食物的牙买加版本。这是很难吃的健康，因为有很多的食物。我没有吃甜点，因为我吃得太多了。我吃了很多的淀粉，而不是大量的蔬菜和水果。

Credibility

No effective speaker can just stand on a platform and simply just start talking about their topic. There is always an introduction that pulls readers into what is being said . Churchill and Goebbels both established credibility in their speech introduction for similar reason but into two distinct ways.

Churchill and Goebbels both start their speeches trying to inspire belief or trust i

n the audience. Church was the new prime minister coming in behind a very heartily supported prime minister. He also came in right in the heat and beginning for World War II when Nazis were tearing across Europe. Can someone say pressure? Goebbels had to be able to gain public approval and encourage Great Britain in this war.  Building credibility was his only option to win over the crowd. Goebbels made his speech as the war was becoming evidently serious.  Goebbels wanted this speech to build popular enthusiasm as well and convince Hitler to give him greater powers in running in the war economy. He needed to first build a slight patriotic connection before he could arouse the crowd to  with his eccentric words.

Churchill pinpoints his finished work from his task of forming a new administration.

He tell this almost like a story. He formed the war cabinet all in one single day , sending position roles to the Majesty and will take it upon himself that everyone and anyone will complete all their projects.  A president that is quick , effective and urgent. A good president he must be? That is exactly what Churchill wanted to build up in his audience. He proved the his audience that he isn't just some new guy but tells of his actions that make him well qualified and seems diligent. Goebbels in his introduction refers to the two events which he stood by his people and  with their unity was able to “ overcome the difficulties we faced in the fourth wars”. He relates with the crowd by pathos. He was “ proud to be bound to all of you radio with the last heroic fighters in Stalingrad during our powerful meeting here in the Sport Palace”. He included the audience using the word “ we” and thanking them for their all mighty support to him and Germany. He uses the intro also as a way to reach to the audiences heart. “ Singing the national anthem”, “Obligation for all of us “, the strength to survive such a disaster” ; all these clauses bring unity to the crowd as one nation. Inserting patriotism in the beginning of this speech helps Goebbels have more effect to convince the audience to fully devote to the war.

Machiavelli and Thoreau - Being the Citizens

Machiavelli and Thoreau have similar attitudes towards the general citizen and man. Both see all men as dumb and naïve while Thoreau sees the same, but just towards the “general” man.

Both Machiavelli and Thoreau see men as people that follow majority. Thoreau goes to say  “Men generally,... think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them.” Men feel as though only a great amount of people can go against “ the machine” but deliberately don't see that this has a poor outcome and chance to change for good. Also, they fail to see that to get change they must take effective action; be a “ counteraction to the machine. General men rely on a number to make government better. This strategy only leads to the government keeping and continuing to have more power . As this is Machiavelli's whole purpose for the prince , he too see citizens as dumb; who  “are always impressed by the superficial appearance of things, and by the outcome of an enterprise.” One person alone isn’t sensible enough to distinguish the appearance of being humane, sincere and truthful apart from cruel treatment, lies and harshness. But, as long as he seems humane, sincere and truthful that is exactly what he must be, right? The people are therefore handing the Prince the upper hand in power. Both Machiavelli and Thoreau believe that citizens add to the their authorities power when they follow majority.

Machiavelli and Thoreau continue to have similar thought when it comes to men and citizens Machiavelli and Thoreau both acknowledge that men are dependent on authority, but Thoreau pins point that only to the general man, while a wise man is different. A Prince wouldn’t mind being called a miser, for even though he is “loading his people with exorbitant taxes and squeezing money out of them in every way he can”, he is still a good leader. So I would imply that he too thinks men will easily obey to the prince, in the end ,  thinking he must be burdening them to get a great return in the end . The citizens once again fail to the see that the high taxes, and work they do isn't for the country’s good but rather to beneficially gain power for the prince. Thoreau would say the same for the general man because he too is bending to the governments will. But on the other hand, to Thoreau “A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away”, but leave that office to his dust at least” The wise citizen will not be used for the benefit of the Government.  He will not conform to the injustices of the government, but rather leave the government to itself. The general man in Machiavelli and Thoreau's eyes don't have the confidence to be self dependent individuals while the wise man stands apart, a far from authority’s rule.