Park Life Russel Brand (Larsen)

In this clip activist, Russel Brand, the English activist argues against the newly enstated law in Florida stating that no individual is allowed to feed the homeless. He is addressing the incident where an old man gave food to the homeless, in Flordia, and is now facing serious charges including jail time up to 2 months and a 500$ fine.

Brand uses Larsen's persuasion application in several ways. The first way is by applying the wisdom of the rustic which appeals to the idea of a rough start blossoming into a successful ending. Likewise, a lot of emphasis is put on the wisdom of the old with this idea.  Brand describes the old man as being a veteran several times. In fact, he refers to the mans as "the lovely veteran old man". Brand also exemplifies the good characteristics the man has developed from the trail of the war the old man experienced. This shows that the old man was able to emerge through trial (the war) to sucess (the good deed he performed by feeding the homeless). Brand argues that the old man should not be punished for doing what is essentially, a good deed by bringing up values like compassion and the right for every human being to have a home. Brand points out the fact that though the general public does not like seeing homeless people on the streets, they have no where else to go due other laws. He states if there is no where to reside because of all the laws then there will be "park life" meaning people sleeping on the benches. At this point he uses the possibility of sucess by mentioning the protest that will be happening against the law raising rent at a paticular apartment complex. Brand states all the things wrong with the law, and then gives hope by saying there is a place one can go to protest against these wrong doings! Lastly Brand uses the presence of conspiracy by stating that the system is currupt. He makes an attempt at upsetting the public by showing how "un fair" things have become. He states that it is unfair to keep a law in place (making it unchangable) for the purpose of simply preventing society from feeding the homeless, but okay a law that states that you dont have to disclose where one gets their funding from from elections. Brand points out that 4 billion dollars is spent on campaighning, an amount that could greatly benefit the homeless problem. He states that the same rich coorperations that are complaining about the homeless are also funding the elections to ensure the person that would favor their bussiness more wins. The poor people become poorer and the rich become richer as a result. Brand ties up the argument by stating that it is an unfair system with un fair rules.
This argument creates a congnitive affect. It states a problem that the public is well aware of, but presents new information from a different point of view. Brand uses anger, frusteration and compassion to prove his point of the government being currupt.
Brand uses process premise through out the argument. The use of needs is very apparent as the topic is centered around not having what one needs as human. It appeals to the public by threatening their emotional security and tapping into their guilt emotions.
Brand was successful in his argument. Not only did he use several persuasive tools we have talked about in class, but he also made it very intertaining to watch. It was a casual appoach to a big problem that could have been addressed with more structure however, that is what makes it so interesting.