WANGARI MAATHAI accepts Nobel Peace Prize

WANGARI MAATHAI – First woman in central or eastern Africa to hold a Ph.D. She started the Green Belt Movement, a simple organization maintained mostly by women that sees to planting trees all over Kenya. The program has not only encouraged environment rejuvenation in Kenya, it was one of the major factors in the Kenyan struggle for democracy.

Maathai’s ethos is who she is, obviously, and what she’s being presented, the Nobel Peace Prize. She has already earned the right to argue from her own success.

The logos is the most fascinating part of the speech, because it is an issue so simple and easily overlooked while also something that could revolutionize the African continent which is ravaged from decades of deforestation. If other people in other countries would encourage a program like this, they would see the immediate effects of equality between men and women, a popular movement for fair democratic processes, etc. The truth is that the reason many of these countries don’t implicate such an easy program is that they fear equality and democracy (that’s starting to sound like a W. speech, but it’s true).

I was very interested by her comment, "Many countries, which have poor governance systems, are also likely to have conflicts and poor laws protecting the environment. " She seems to suggest, using the Green Belt Movement as an example, that by striving to improve the environment, one can improve his/her government.

Her pathos came at the end with her story:

As I conclude I reflect on my childhood experience when I would visit a stream next to our home to fetch water for my mother. I would drink water straight from the stream. Playing among the arrowroot leaves I tried in vain to pick up the strands of frogs’ eggs, believing they were beads. But every time I put my little fingers under them they would break. Later, I saw thousands of tadpoles: black, energetic and wriggling through the clear water against the background of the brown earth. This is the world I inherited from my parents.

Today, over 50 years later, the stream has dried up, women walk long distances for water, which is not always clean, and children will never know what they have lost. The challenge is to restore the home of the tadpoles and give back to our children a world of beauty and wonder.

.....


http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2004/maathai-lecture.html

Response to a different type of speech

For my second outside speech, I thought that it would be interesting to use a movie speech that most people would in no way consider to be rhetorically useful. I chose the 2004 graduation speech given by Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon) in the movie, Legally Blond. It is a short speech that is given at Harvard’s Law School graduation. In the film, Elle was a misguided student who entered Harvard’s Law School only to get back her boyfriend, who, thought that she was pretty, but not acceptable to be a Senator’s wife. Throughout the film, Elle realizes that she is very intelligent and does not need her boyfriend justify her life. She also realizes that passion creates the ability to become a great lawyer or speaker. Since I plan to go to law school and am very passionate about what I want to do, I felt that this speech was actually useful.

Elle has a great deal of ethos with the audience to which she is giving the speech because they have watched her grow into a bright, successful lawyer. They know of the many failures and successes that she has had; therefore she is credible in giving a speech about passion. Also, her passion allows her to be seen as more sincere. She also must be given some deal of ethos simply for being a Harvard Law School graduate and for being chosen to speak at the ceremony.

The speech contains logos which is tied up with pathos. First, her logic that Aristotle was wrong is backed by her audience’s experience in law school (it takes a great deal of passion). She also denies that cliché of first impressions with a more logical argument that first impressions are not always right (logically, this has also been backed by the film). Throughout the logos is a running pathos of courage and passion. Elle is encouraging everyone to enter the law world with confidence in themselves and others. This is a very moving speech to her audience.

This speech is mostly epideictic in its nature. It also has some deliberative qualities because it is giving advice and hope for the future. I felt that the speech was epistemic in it’s example that one should have confidence in one’s self.

This speech can be found at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechlegallyblonde.html

In Response

Like Jacquinna I, too, analyzed President Bill Clinton’s rhetorical strategies in his speech given on September 11, 1998, to the clergy at the annual White House prayer breakfast. Jacquinna makes a valid point—one that I did not notice or include in my own response. Jacquinna says, "Early in the speech Clinton connects with his listeners through ethos by establishing himself as an honest, average man…This is simple but shows that he is a regular man who does regular things and ultimately makes mistakes." In reading back over President Clinton’s speech, Jacquinna’s point is crucial to the entire effectiveness of President Clinton’s address to the clergy. Though he continues the theme of forgiveness and repentance throughout, underlying his confessions seems to be an attitude of ‘Hey, I’m human, too.’ The problem with this is, however, that though he would have liked for us to have simply excused him as an average man who makes mistakes the position he held required that he exceed the "average man" to uphold a higher moral standard as a model leader and representative of the country. However, as I said in my own response and as Jacquinna seems to say too, President Clinton’s speech is, rhetorically, very effective. At that point, only time would tell the sincerity of his heart (or the determination of his will) to make amends.

Happy Australia Day! (1-26-05) with love, Major General Jeffery.

Major General Jeffery uses the ideas set up by Bitzer in his Australia Day address on the 26th of January of this year. Australia Day is the biggest holiday of the year for Australians; they celebrate everything that is great about their Country. It is also a day of re-committment to the betterment of Australia as a whole. Major General Jeffery is the Covernor General of the Commonwealth of Australia.
In his address, Mr. Jeffery starts out speaking epideicticaly praising the people of Australia for their committment to excellence. He celebrates the construction of the Royal Exhibition Building and discussed the new benchmarks set by the Australian parliament. He illustrates Bitzer's argument that "a work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world; it performs some task" (Bitzer, 219). Jeffery's address does not necessarily take a side in an issue, but instead challenges and encourages a people who are not against him, they simply need a motivational spark to get the ball rolling. He challenges Australians to learn about the democracy in their country along with studying the Australian Constitution because he believes that this document is taken for granted. He brings forth the issue that younger Australians are not taking an active interest in politics and maintains that "if we cannot find ways to spark their interest and involvement, we risk the consequences of more young Australians simply turning away. This can also give support to Bitzer's idea of exigence, audience and constraints. His address is marked by urgency, there is something waiting to be done, namely getting the younger generation involved in political thinking. He is most definitely speaking to a particular audience and a supportive one. His message was not very controversial. He also used the constraints of young people and the constitution to show his belief in the country he works for. Mr. Jeffrey also asserts that the public needs to learn about voting and that "we do need to understand our past and how our democracy has developed, for without that, our nation won't be fully prepared to assemble its future" I completely agree with this man especially when he speaks of the need of community volunteers and that everyone needs to be involved in their community. All in all this was a very calm, nice speech for the Australian "4th of July." It is important to spread this kind of message all over the world and to celebrate the individual triumphs of every country. Happy Australian Day!

Kerry on the symbol of a struggling America

During John Kerry's "Four Days to Change America" speech, he uses three major images as a symbol of an America that is struggling under George W. Bush administration. In the speech, he is telling America that they have four days until the election in which they will have an opportunity to give these three people that he uses as examples a chance.

Kerry gives us the image of a "father [whose] job has been outsourced and his new job doesn't pay the bills like his old one did." Second, he presents the image of a "young woman [who wonders] how you juggle work and family and why no matter how hard she works she seems to fall further behind." Lastly, he gives us teh image of a "woman...thinking about the husband she said goodbye to so many months ago...[and] wonder how much longer he'll have to stay in Iraq."

Relating to the "Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric," Kerry is using these symbols of humanity in America to communicate that he is the one America needs to change this situation.

Moreover, nothing screams PATHOS more than this speech. Kerry is hammering emotional connection all the way home b/c he wants to connect to that father, that young woman, that lonely wife. So why did it not work? Well...aside from the (watch out, my personal opinion) many flaws of John Kerry, I feel that rhetoric was ineffective here. WHY! Kerry left out ethos - the crediblity of himself. Why would John Kerry leave himself out as a connector? Simply put: John Kerry has no way to connect to that poor father, the young jobless woman, or the lonely wife b/c he's always had more than enough. Married to two multi-millionaires, John Kerry seems a little aloof to be making that kind of connection. Therefore, it would take a lot of effective rhetoric to bring in elements of himself that could attempt to pull off that kind of connection, but its possible.

Here, John Kerry failed in his rhetoric and it cost him a lot of credibility.

Barker as the symbol of rags to riches

Bitzer argues in The Rhetorical Situation that rhetoric is dependent on situation – situation meaning that there must be an audience concerned with the topic at hand that is able to do something about it, and that there must be some sort of a compelling reason for the rhetoric to begin with. He says that the best rhetoric springs up from necessity, such as the shooting of John F. Kennedy when America needed desperately to know why it had happened, and what would become of them. In a 2004 speech by President Barker to the Higher Education Subcommittee (www.clemson.edu/pres/speech/012104.htm) the audience is most definitely rhetorical, by Bitzer’s definition of the word – that is, the audience is comprised of people who currently fund some of the school’s programs. The president could not give this same speech to a group of English students and call it rhetorical, because whether or not we agreed with him, the issue at hand is nothing we can affect – we are not capable of funding school programs any more than our tuition already funds.

Barker introduces the speech with praise towards his audience for their support in the past – he is engaging them and trying to win them over to his side. He acknowledges the fact that there is not enough money to do everything everyone wants to do, therefore making their task “to ensure that every dollar the state spends is a good investment.” He thanks his audience for their support of Clemson’s research, but then he moves towards his real aim: to acquire more funding for the school by saying that “funding for basic academic programs continues to decline” despite increased research support. Building on this argument, Barker uses logical examples and actual statistics (such as the “unprecedented 41 percent cut for Clemson’s Public Service Activities”) to show that money needs to flow towards the undergraduate students who are suffering from rising tuition costs.

Finally, Barker uses himself as an example to win his audience over, an audience that obviously values higher education, when he says, “the Emerging Scholars Program is important…to me, personally…I am the first person in my extended family to go to college.” After thanking his audience for their past support, presenting the problems and how his audience could supply a solution, Barker uses himself as a symbol, so to speak, of the underprivileged American who can really be someone…if only they’re given the chance. He is the proof, then, for this audience, that what he is proposing is really a good idea.

Hillary Clinton on Women's Rights

The tone of Hillary Clinton's speech on Women's Rights is deliberative and epidecitic. The speech being deliberative derives from Hillay's call to attention for women's rights in order for them to achieve their potential, because women's rights equal human rights. It is also epeideictic in the sense that Hillary is also praising the world's women for all they have done inside the home and out for themselves, their families, and communities. She also, however, calls to their potentials that they cannot attain without certain rights, which would bring them respect. There is a definite call to action, which would acheive human rights for women.
Her use of logos is subtle. She recalls many years of women's opression, with referecnces to particular countries and specific opressions. She also however appeals to pathos because she gives specific examples that create a sense of unity between her, the women in the audience, and the women all over the world. She uses pathos further by describing the plight of women. For example: not being able to afford day care or child care, working at night and taking care of the kinds during the day, domestic violence, and not having a voice in politics. She stresses that many of these issues are still very much a factor in many countries for many women still to this day. She heavily applies pathos when she begins to compare woemn's rights to human rights and gives gruesome examples of the tortues that women receive in many countries. I am going to provide a large portion of the text which exemplifies this, because as a women, it horrified me to hear that things like this are still happening around the world. I wanted to share it with all of my calssmates.
"It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will" (Hilary Clinton).

She applies her time in politics as an aspect of her ethos, yet the fact that she is a women adds credibility to herself and her speech. She does an effective job in relaying the urgency of the matter of women's rights, as it affects children and families as well. There is no reason to wait any longer to take action and create a safe and dignifying world for women to live freely in, and a world in which they can pursue their dreams without fearing for their lives.

CA's Thoughts on "Habitation"

As we talked in class on Thursday, the question of rhetoric as decorum is something that is brought up at the end of "Habitation." I thought about this meaning over the weekend while I was working on other things, especially the Clemson Forensics Compeitition that was here on campus this weekend. Each person and team had a certain way and demeanor about how they competed, how they treated other people, and the personal integrity that had for the field of forensics (just as a reference, Forensics is competitive speaking, like a speech team, and not like CSI Crime Scene Investigation).

Decorum in rhetoric, as well in a speech competition, is a prue process with a place between action and production with no stability across situations since it represents a constantly moving process of negoiation. Decorum also has flexible standards that change under context with a set of rules that is appropriate for a certain situation.

I want to end this discussion with a thought by the author of this piece that shows just how important rhetoric and decorum is when preparing speeches or public presentations. As I read in class...On page 62, Michael Leff writes "That is, it works to align the stylistic and arguementative features of the discourse within a unified structure while ajusting the whole structure to the context from which the discourse aries and to which it responds."

Bush SS reform

Bush on Social Security Reform.
Most people, especially those who don’t like Bush, will have a problem with this speech. The word I and other personal nouns were used excessively. It’s great he wants to reform SS, and that he thinks it’s a good idea, but it would sound better to use we on occasion. Due to the excessive I’s, Bush has lost potential listeners in the 1st paragraph were 7 I’s were used. I tried to count the total, but I lost track. Other paragraphs have just as many but say there are ONLY 14 I’s per page…that makes 14x8=112. WOW!The best argument of logic, or logos, that SS is going to be bankrupt eventually and it is better to do something now than sit and wait. We realize now that the number of workers to retirees has decreased from 16-1 to 3-1 and is still declining. This problem needs immediate attention.Again, Bush creates very little ethos for himself. He only mentions himself in connection with the Presidency once. However, he did create some for each of his panel. Expert Andrew Biggs received the most praise and credibility. Bush continues to end his speeches with pathos; however, it was weaker this time. Most of the pathos was found within the speech concerning the lack of revenue in the SS system. The last paragraph on the first page has so much emotion in it I was worried there would be hysteria.The decorum of this speech was unique and friendly. Bush called most of his panelist by first name and joked around with them as well. Not very Presidential, but this laid back attitude is what got him re-elected.
Bush had a very clear cut telos, or goal, for SS reform. He outlined what he expected of congress and told them he would work with them. However, Bush was very demanding and said reform would be done and it needs to happen quickly.The issue of SS reform has needed to be addressed for some time. In fact Bush said he would fix the system in his last term. Bush used kairos, or timing, by saying reform is necessary and if it is not done it will be bankrupt. This speech was very demanding and authoritative. I don’t think Bush used the correct words to be effective and creating change. Reform needs to happen and maybe it will, but if congress does something it won’t be a direct result of this speech.

Response to Laura Bush's campaigning speech and the Bitzer and Intro readings

This week’s readings were definitely a bit easier for me to comprehend. The first reading, “An Introduction to Rhetoric” was exactly what the title suggests, an introduction to the art of rhetoric. It showed the evolution of rhetoric starting from the time around the fifth century with the sophists, the teachers of wisdom and rhetoric, and the Greeks who distrusted them. We are taken through the Middle Ages, when rhetoric was beginning to be incorporated into preaching and was thought to exist in the writing of letters and also in education. The Enlightenment was a time that preferred and focused on science rather than rhetoric. The Modern Period held three trends: the epistemological, belletristic, and elocutionist. The end of the reading took us through a tour of what was coming up in the book and explained the reasoning for the choices of selections to be included in the book.

The second reading, “The Rhetorical Situation” was a bit easier to apply to the outside speech I chose to critique, a campaigning speech, written by Laura Bush, in September of 2004. According the Bitzer, discourse is created because of the situation. This accurately applies to Laura Bush’s speech, which was created for the purpose of the upcoming election. This is also an example of kairos, where Bush times the speech to occur close enough to the election that the audience will be affected and vote accordingly. Her telos, as a result of producing a speech at this time is to influence the audience enough to vote for her husband so that he may win the election. Bitzer mentions that there are three constituents of a rhetorical situation. They are exigence, audience, and constraints. Bitzer quotes, “An exigence is rhetorical when it is capable of positive modification and when positive modification requires discourse or can be assisted by discourse”(221). In the case of Bush’s speech, the election and the need for a new president would be the exigence. The speech made by Bush is the discourse that is helping to positively change the outcome of the election. The rhetorical audience is supposed to be “capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change” (221). The audience of Bush’s speech was certainly rhetorical because they were all capable of being persuaded by the speech and capable of being able to change the outcome of the election. Constraints of the rhetorical situation involve the “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives,” ect…(222). They all have “the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (222). The beliefs and attitudes that the audience bring with them to hear the speech will possibly constrain them from modifying the situation (or in this case, voting for President Bush again).

In terms of ethos, logos, and pathos, I think Laura Bush does an excellent job of establishing all three throughout her speech. Ethos is created specifically well in places of the speech where she refers to her family and creates the image of them as being “normal”. She dedicates a paragraph to tell of the changes her own family is experiencing during this time of the elections, noting the loss of the family dog, the daughters’ career moves, and the moving of her mother to a retirement home. Because we hear what the family is experiencing in everyday life, we are better able to connect with them and trust in them to make decisions that concern the life of the common man. Her use of logos is especially effective because she is trying to convince the audience of all that her husband has contributed to the US over the past four years. She makes comments on acts that were created such as “No Child Left Behind” and talks about the contributions her husband has made in the funding of stem cell research. The most effective example of logos in my opinion is the paragraph that talks of how President Lincoln and Roosevelt didn’t want to go to war, but they knew they had to. These past examples help to support her husband’s decision to go to war. She uses pathos effectively with her example of her generation hiding under desks during the Cold War. She uses this terrifying memory to show how America has changed, and with the leadership of her husband, the children will no longer be hiding under desks, afraid of terror alerts. The category of the speech is primarily epideictic, mainly because Laura Bush is praising her husband’s actions and contributions to the US over the past four years. I found this speech at the website:

www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/014851.html.

Response to Jimmy Carter's Speech to the Cuban People

For my outside speech, I chose Jimmy Carter’s 2002 address to the Cuban people. This topic interests me because my step-mother and her family came to the US from Cuba several years ago. Today they are all American citizens; however, they still have a great deal of extended family living in Cuba. Her family does not wish for everyone to be living in the US but rather, they want to be able to openly communicate, visit, and share gifts with one another. On May 14, 2002, Jimmy Carter met with President Castro to discuss this very issue.

Upon his arrival, Carter gave a speech to all the Cuban people. I personally found the speech to be very useful in its purpose of setting the stage for a future peaceful relationship between the United States and Cuba. Carter’s ethos was already established simply by his position as a past US President. His ethos was further identified with his mention of his dealings with US/Chinese relationship; which was similar to this situation.

Carter also uses a great deal of logos in his speech. He uses the Cuban and American pasts to show that the two nations should be friendly towards one another. Carter also attempts to show the spreading success of democracy throughout Central and South America and the advancements that could be made through free trade. He also uses the argument that this friendliness is desired by a majority of people in both countries; therefore, a friendship should exist. Most effectively, Carter points out that the rest of the world has completely changed; therefore this relationship should also be reconsidered.
The speech contained little pathos but some was established with his discussion of Cuban immigrants and the split families.

I also felt that this speech was a great deal epideictic. Carter spends a lot of time discussing the successes of both the US and Cuba; I believe that this is to show the Cubans that we value their strengths and they should value ours (Civil Liberties-as presented by this speech). Because Carter is trying to convince them to allow the UN and other inspections, it is important to make them feel important in the decision.

The speech was very carefully varied between forensic (in his discussion of the histories of both nations) and deliberative (in his wishes for a peaceful future relationship). I believe that this speech is both epistemic and non-epistemic. Carter is using the known facts of our pasts to generate a result of a peaceful future. He is attempting to use some already known facts to push the people to a new product.

This speech can be found at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercubaspeech.htm

Oklahoma City Speech, April 23, 1995

I know this speech was older than the time frame that we were supposed to use (and I hope that was ok), but I felt that this was a great example of rhetoric when our nation needed it. This speech was in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombings in 1995 and was made by then President Bill Clinton.
President Clinton uses a multitude of pathos in this speech for many reasons. He was addressing to a crowd of people who had just lost their love ones, family members, friends, and co-workers in a senseless attack. One powerful use of pathos is "Our words seem small beside the loss you have endured." President Clinton knew that the words that he said could not possibly make up for the people who died in the bombing. He is reassuring and caring, and he knew that it would not be long before the responsible people were punished for the attack. This is an example of deliberative rhetoric because President Clinton stated what had occured in the past, and what measures were going to be taken in the future and upcoming days to punish the attackers.
From an emotional and pathos standpoint, my favorite line from this speech is the following:
"It was a dogwood this its wonderful spring flower and its deep, enduring roots. It embodies the lesson ... that the life of a good person is like a tree whose leaf does not wither. My fellow Americans, a tree takes a long time to grow, and wounds take a long time to heal."
While President Clinton uses forensic rhetoric to examine what has happened in the past with the bombing, he is also using deliberative rhetoric to look to the future for Americans and the families affected by the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Miracle Cells

In a January 2005 WORLD Magazine article [http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10284] a University of Kansas researcher addresses a rhetorical situation. The debate over stem-cell research and application of findings becomes controversial because of the use of embryos as sources for these miracle cells. Dr. Mitchell has discovered that stem cells can be extracted from umbilical cords rather than human embryos, and she has successfully experimented with these cells resulting in the elimination of diabetes in mice. The research has also been applied to humans, specifically to a young boy with a brain disorder who is completely healed as a result of treatment.
The exigence of the situation exists because a non-controversial, effective alternative exists to the controversial treatment with stem cells extracted from embryos. Complication arises when the two audiences are considered. First, the colleagues and grant-approvers. Because embryonic stem cells are the popular choice, scientists and money sources are slow to endorse umbilical cell stem cell endeavors. Second, the general public, in whom lies the bulk of the concern, who would be willing to forgoe the debate in favor of non-controversial treatment methods. The constraints on the situation include the tendency of grant-givers and other scientists to allocate funds and promote embryonic stem cell research [ultimately in order to win the controversial debate], thus rejecting the funding of research of alternate stem cell sources.
Dr. Mitchell will respond rhetorically to the situation by writing a proposal for a grant. She will have to employ the 5 canons to create an effective document: invention- formulating her ideas and arguments; organization-structuring her ideas and arguments logically and intentionally; style-deciding which words to use to express her ideas and arguments to facilitate correct interpretation; delivery-in her case, a written document in an appealing format; and memory-being able to present her case whenever called upon to do so.

No Child Left Behind

I enjoyed President Bush's speech to Stuart High School in Virginia. His speech was addressed to the children and presented education in a fun way. Bush's main points were that every student should given the assets to graduate, the bar would be raised, testing would be implemented to monitor progress, and the States would be left in control.

The best argument of logic, or logos, is that American schools are falling behind the curve. As a nation we need to do something to improve graduation, reading and math rates. This is the minimum needed and I think that Bush makes that clear.

Bush has all the credibility he needs, he’s the President. However, in this speech he did not establish any further ethos for himself. Instead he tried to created more credibility for teachers and principals.

Bush always ends his speeches with a lot of pathos. This trend continues with an enthusiastic ending paragraph. Speaking very specifically on not leaving any child behind, Bush gets a very loud response from the crowd.

The decorum of this speech was changed to let the immediate audience feel welcome. Bush did not stand at a lectern talking at senators or representatives. Instead he meandered around a stage talking to High Schoolers as if he was one of them. Bush made many funny jokes at a High School level and thanked them “for letting this old man come and speak…” to them.

Bush had a very clear cut telos, or goal, for education. He outlined what he expected of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Most of all he told the Federal Legislators that they would be behind him in this initiative.
Bush outlined when and for what purpose testing would be administered, but made it clear that each State would be responsible for creating and monitoring the tests and their results.

The issue of education has needed to be addressed for some time. Bush used kairos, or timing, when he picked Stuart High. This school had been floundering but now it is back in the green and even leading is some statistics. Our education system as whole is being challenged by other nations who are producing smarter and more literate children.

Bush’s speech was very epideictic, in that it praised Stuart, the students and teachers there, for their improvements. Yet, he also criticized anyone who would argue that education does not need reform. By saying we are going to improve, others may have felt stepped on.

As a whole, this was a very well thought out speech. It drew more people in than it offended. It set clear goals with a purpose that are achievable and it was very timely.

Bush's Inaugural Speech

For this I do apologize, for I don't intend at all to, colloquially, "beat something that is already dead," but I wanted to post a few remarks concerning this speech, since we are all familiar with it and the problems we all have with it. Also, I was unsure whether to post on a different speech or this one. Thus, I'm giving a few final remarks before this speech is archived forever.

Initially, I would like to remark on his use of ethos, specifically, and as we discussed, the ethos of the entire event. As for the entire event, his first remarks set up the honor and ceremony of this most revered event. He says, "On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony" and continues to hallow the government, constitution, and the state of our nation with respect to its history and foundation. Immediately, and as the President of USA, he commands respect and credibility. Throughout the speech, he makes remarks and quotes Abraham Lincoln, refers to the wide religious faiths, and while his ethos is sometimes weak, its the strongest part of his speech.

Unlike ethos, his use of logos is very weak and insubstantive. As our class rated it a "D" in most cases, some failed him completely. Mostly, his logic consisted of what America has done in the past, and discussing achievements we have made. Nevertheless, even those were weak.

While our class consistently failed his pathos, I feel that President Bush's speech had quality pathos when it was present. During a time of war, there is nothing more that rallies a nation than when you discuss what our troops are fighting for, their lives, their values, and what they do every day for the cost of our freedom and other nations' freedom. Yes, I realize that it was a vague statement and some said it could have come from Bin Laden; however, I feel that it made a connection emotionally.

Overall, I feel that President Bush intended not to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos -- morever, he wanted to overall appeal to our sense of American nationalism, and our sense of liberty and freedom that is such a big pride issue for Americans, the "free-est" nation on earth.

Therefore, I commend his speech because he is the President of the United States of America, and because I support him in the respect. However, in the world of rhetoric, its obvious his speech lacked a great deal in quality. Lastly, in the world of Kevin Jennings (fyi: my world), it just felt darn cold to me. For me, something could be wicked boring, but if someone is talking something they care about, putting some life in it, some SPIRIT!, then I can deal. President Bush, I couldn't deal.

Under the weather

Hey folks,
Sorry about the delay and my absence from class on Tuesday... I haven't felt so hot and I let my work load pile up. So, if you are wondering where my posts are for this week you can rest assured that they will be up this weekend. I plan to work on them and my health as soon as the Forensics tourney is over this weekend. thanks!

Conan returns to Harvard

I’m using Conan O’Brian’s Commencement Speech given to the 2000 graduating class at Harvard.
Conan himself is a Harvard grad, somewhat unknown fact, so there were a lot of inside Harvard jokes (“Nowhere else in the world will you find a man wearing a turban and a Red Sox jacket working in a lesbian bookstore”). Irregardless, the speech was effective. Anyone who knows Conan’s humor will not be surprised by how funny this speech was. He uses the humor to his advantage. For him, it is a vehicle to keep his audience engaged.
A perfect example of this is when he tells that he had wanted so badly to be a student speaker at his graduation that he wrote a speech, and, when he wasn’t asked to give it, he kept it, just in case. Here, he reads a section:

“I would like to make several predictions about what the future will hold. I believe that one day a simple governor from a small southern state will rise to the highest office in the land. He will lack political skill, but will lead on the sheer strength of his moral authority. I believe that justice will prevail and one day the Berlin Wall will crumble, uniting East and West Berlin forever under Communist rule. I believe that one day a high-speed network of interconnected computers will spring up worldwide, so enriching people that they will lose their interest in idle chitchat and pornography. And finally, I believe that one day I will have a television show on a major network seen by millions of people at night which I will use to reenact crimes and and help catch at-large criminals."

He invokes pathos through his description of his life as a cycle of success followed by crippling failure. His ethos is that he himself is a Harvard grad, therefore he has the authority to present some of the many possibilities that await one who will graduate from Harvard. His logos ultimately in arguing that Harvard grads will see crippling failures is in the fact, as he says, that they will always remain above the bell curve. He says the fact that they feel they will always remain comfortably above failure makes them crumble when they do encounter/experience any failure.
The speech is not epistemic. He is more likely to reinforce that which many of the Harvard students have been told. Yet, he builds on it by using his life as an example.
His closing is perfect. He reads what he says is a critique that has been written that year about him:

"Somehow, Conan O'Brien has transformed himself into the brightest star in the late-night firmament. His comedy is the gold standard, and Conan himself is not only the quickest and most inventive wit of his generation, but quite possibly the greatest host ever."

Then he admits, “I wrote that this morning. As proof that when all else fails, you always have delusion.”

Nobel Prize in Stockholm

I thought it would be interesting to read a speech that was not given in America; I chose the presentation speech for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2004 given in Stockholm. Comparing this speech to the one given by our president, several things immediately come to mind. First, President Bush is not known for his eloquence of speech, and he is addressing an audience ranging from past presidents all the way to people like you and I. Professor Engdahl is addressing a notably distinguished crowd and, as a professor in literature, is probably trained better in the art of rhetoric. Keeping those things in mind, the main difference I found was the plan of attack: Bush clearly used pathos as his main tool for persuading people to stand beside him. Engdahl used the opposite approach, with an intense interlacing of logos and ethos references, with hardly any reference to pathos at all.

Engdahl’s use of ethos surprised me – in his compliments of the author to receive the award, Elfriede Jelinek, Engdahl does not sound very complimentary at all. He says things like, “The author is everywhere and nowhere, never quite standing behind her words…” and, “Elfriede Jelinek’s social criticism is formed not from the safe distance of superior knowledge but from the depths of an unqualified contamination.” He describes the author’s dark style, which is not pessimism, but “perhaps give us a dark picture of life…a scandalous joviality without hope, rays from a black sun.” The credibility of the author, at least according to the speaker, lies in the fact that she is female and yet presents such a non-feminine tone in her works. He ends his speech saying, “If literature by definition is a force that bends to nothing, you are in our day one of its truest representations.”


What really grabs me is that the speech really is pretty honest; if I were Jelinek, I don’t know how I would feel walking up to the front of the room after such a prelude. It is honest, and yet its honesty is what makes it so very convincing – the speaker wouldn’t have made such an effort to portray Jelinek as dark unless he had a very good reason to, otherwise he would have helped her to save face a little. Engdahl is saying that Jelinek, bends to nothing – but he, as a rhetor, does bend. He puts that last little paragraph in to appeal to whatever logos or pathos he missed in talking about the author’s credibility the whole time. Bush, however, hides the dark things – his audience doesn’t want to hear dark things! In that sense, too, I have to agree with Leff in that rhetoric is based around timing – there are only certain moments when things are effective, certain audiences who will hear. Engdahl’s speech was, of course, of much less consequence than Bush’s, so he had the luxury of no having to hide from his audience.

Coach Jones

Ed Harris delivers a speech at the end of the movie Radio that follows what we have been studying in class. An example of ethos is when Harris identifies himself as a football player and a lover of the sport. He realizes his audience and knows exactly what to say to show his credibility. An example of pathos is when he talks about Radio's progress over the past couple of months. He mentions how Radio has gone from being someone who wouldn't talk at all to someone who now makes the morning announcements over the intercom. He also mentions how Radio earned himself a football letter but can't show it off because he can't afford the jacket. The timing of Harris's speech is appropriate. It comes at a time when his future and Radio's future is in question. His entire speech is leading up to his resignation as head football coach. Along the way he tries to remind the townspeople of how special Radio is. Parts of Harris's speech are epideictic. Harris praises Radio and all of his accomplishments. It is obvious how proud Harris is of Radio. Overall, the speech is very moving, and Harris does an excellent job of delivering it.
This speech can be found at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechradio.html

Alden is David's sister; All David's sisters have red hair; so Alden has red hair.

The comparison between rhetoric and poetics is an interesting topic brought up by Leff in his essay, especially when directed towards the recent inaugural speech by our President. Leff discusses the difference between persuasion and argument and persuasion and aesthetics. The only difference between these two ideas is in the determination of the speech’s purpose. George W. Bush’s inaugural speech would be expected to have a little more of a persuasive feel to it as he only won by a small margin in the recent election. Whether he accomplished this goal is debatable. On the other hand, a speech such as Jon Stewart’s graduation speech would be geared more towards aesthetics and entertainment. Leff feels that it is important for a successful speech to have a full understanding of the ontology of any speech, executing it carefully. I would argue that a good speech should have a balance of persuasion and aesthetics since it is very hard to persuade someone if they do not want to listen. A successful speech brings the audience in as soon as possible before attempting to persuade. The author must have in-depth knowledge of his topic before he can effectively persuade “as part of an adaptive mechanism vital to any reasonable understanding of public events themselves” (Leff, 61). This goes along with the Scott essay when he says that the individual “must know the truth and that persuasion at its best is simply making the truth effective” (Scott 137). This also assumes that the speakers understanding of “truth” correlates to his genuine understanding of ethical behavior. This idea of ethical truth encompasses “toleration, will and responsibility” which is alarmingly up to the discretion of the speaker. After reading Bush’s speech, this idea was brought into perspective and left some room for interpretation. If Bush actually thinks that everything he has done is right and good and that we much still keep going along the same path then he is speaking as ethically as he can. If his ideas are not right, it is left to the audience to decide how to take him. He illustrates Scott’s idea that “Man must consider truth not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (Scott 138). Apparently the rest of us must cope with this as well.

Bush's Inauguration

Let me begin by saying I am a Bush supporter. Although this speech is not one of the best ones I have heard him make, there were some positive points that need to be made about the speech. He did a good job of using pathos. Bush was making his speech to every person in the United States of America. He mentioned parts of history that he knew every American would have an emotional response to. He talks about Abraham Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence, and the Liberty Bell. The whole purpose of his speech was to remind Americans of the ones in history who once fought for the freedom and liberty that they enjoy today. He may have overused the words freedom and liberty. I think he would have had a bigger effect with the words if he had used them less often. As for kairos, I think the content of his speech came at a very appropriate time. He wanted to inform his fellow citizens of what was to be expected out of him in the next four years.

President Bill Clinton 9/11/1998

On September 11, 1998 President Bill Clinton spoke at the annual White House prayer breakfast for clergy following his testimony and address to the nation on the Monica Lewinsky affair, Washington, D.C. In the Presidents’ speech he definitely uses rhetoric. It is ironic that he is speaking to a religious group considering he had just committed many sins including lying and adultery. However, the president uses many aspects of rhetoric to connect with his audience at such a difficult time. Early in the speech Clinton connects with his listeners through ethos by establishing himself as an honest, average man. He states that he spent the night writing his speech down and will need his glasses to read his own writing. This is simple but shows that he is a regular who does regular things and ultimately makes mistakes. He also appeals to the group of clergy by stating that he spent the night praying. In the speech he also takes the time to issue apologies not only to his family and friends, but to those of Monica Lewinsky and to the American people. President Clinton’s deliberative approach is perhaps his most effective because he particularly lists what actions he will take in his legal process as the President. He states, “my lawyers will mount a vigorous defense,” “I will continue on the path of repentance” and “intensify efforts to lead our country and the world toward peace and freedom.” Clinton also states that he is grateful to the many citizens who continue to support him and send him wise counsel. Throughout his address he continuously makes Biblical references which appeal to the clergy who are religious leaders. He ends his address by asking that leaders share his prayers and support him as he gains a clean heart and to be pleasing in the sight of God.

September 11, 1998

President Bill Clinton spoke on September 11, 1998, at the annual White House prayer breakfast. Though I did not hear this particular speech, it was apparently given to the clergy following his address to the nation about the Monica Lewinsky affair.

From a rhetorical standpoint, and aside from any positive or negative views on President Clinton or the specific situation that preceded this event, I think the overall speech is effective. In reflecting upon the surrounding circumstances to his speech, President Clinton’s ethos would not have been too convincing at this point in his presidency. However, the speech he gives is timely and his tone takes on an appropriate one of sorrow and regret. He immediately attempts to establish a sense of credibility as he confesses his wrongdoings against God, his family and his country. He admits that the speech he intends to give is one he handwrote (and prayed about) the previous night. He makes his apologies. He acknowledges that true sorrow in the heart brings leads one to repentance. And this repentance, he says, is "a determination to change and to repair breaches of [his] own making." He references the Bible and ties in a number of verses that pertain to his situation.

From the direction of his personal confessions, he goes on to delineate what this means for the nation as a whole. This lets the people know that he realizes how his actions have not just affected him personally, but have affected the whole country. He gives three strong points of things he intends to do as forms of "repair." He tells the nation, from this point, that though he "cannot move beyond or forget this," it is important that "our nation move forward." He looks forward with confidence for the nation and with hope of forgiveness for himself. He says that the country can learn in a "profound" way that "integrity is important and selfishness is wrong" and that "God can change us and make us strong at the broken places."

Through the use of his rhetoric, his ethos is established, and he offers meaningful logos throughout the structure of his speech. He offers suggestions with real and detailed goals or methods of change.

Finally, he creates pathos in appealing to the country’s heart to forgive him. He admits to his brokenness all through his speech and tells his audience that he not only genuinely seeks repentance but intends to see that change is truly brought about. He creates a strong sense of pathos in a story he tells of a little boy who came up to him in Florida who said that he wanted to grow up and be just like him ("the President"). This real example appeals in an authentic way to his audience. He says he wants to be that example for children. Another added means of his pathos was a passage he stumbled upon from a liturgy book called Gates of Repentance he had received from a Jewish friend. The passage captures what President Clinton has said his heart has been diligently seeking: forgiveness and repentance. He ends in incorporating into his own prayers various passages from Scripture merged together. In this sense, the various Scriptures found throughout different books of the Bible and joined together without direct referencing--seeming to suggest that he is familiar with the Bible and these verses stumbled upon his remembrance and heart in writing the night before.

Whether he was sincere about this speech or not is left entirely for open-ended debate. However, the rhetoric in his speech was cultivated in such a way that proves very convincing. Persuading that he has come humbly before the God, his family, the clergy, the people of his country and under his leadership, in sincere apology and remorse.

A Second Attempt

As was stated in class, rhetoric must be taken in the context in which it exists. Our group discussed that Bush’s ethos rested primarily upon this context, his second inauguration and his second presidency. He gains a certain amount of credibility simply in the fact that he was leading the United States during the devastating 911. The direction of his speech is, therefore, almost understandable or predictable as this ethos has established for him a reason to focus on such a topic as freedom. From these perspectives, this form of ethos seems to be strong enough to gain some merit.

From a completely rhetorical standpoint, I agree with much of what was mentioned in class. Bush’s speech seems to rely heavily on pathos, and he maintains his theme of liberty, freedom, and the American ideal throughout—though with very little detail or logical perspective. With all we have been reading in class, it’s hard sometimes not to compare rhetorical strategy. One of our initial readings for class was MLK’s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." His appeal was one that combined an honest rhetorical technique and a heartfelt passion to create a letter that serves as a valuable model for what, through rhetoric, language is able to accomplish. Logos, ethos, and pathos were clear and effective aspects of MLK’s letter, and his life examples added to and developed a sense of all three.

I guess a positive point to Bush’s speech was that it maintained a consistency. His steady urgings for freedom run throughout, and he knowingly mentions historical documents (The Declaration of Independence) and historical symbols (such as the Liberty Bell) to arouse a general feeling of this "American ideal." He regularly incorporates the pronoun "we" to establish an idea that America, united, will make important, perhaps the "greatest," strides to ensure and experience this freedom. All of these conventions would have been effective to arouse a valued sense of liberty among Americans, yet it seems more detail could have been incorporated to make his speech not only more memorable but also more meaningful.

Melody

In Response

Just some thoughts in response:

Dana makes some logical assertions to the Leff and Scott readings. The bounds of rhetoric have stretched far beyond that of the political arena—so much to the point that it seems there has grown a larger focus on it. I remember it was always one of those vocabulary words mentioned in high school classes with very little explanation. One of those "terms"—it was always just a term, something always inactive—understood in the sense that it was not completely understood. I’ve come to realize that rhetoric does not just provide students with a logical way to approach or develop an argument, but it opens worlds of opportunity for individuals to develop competent writing and communication skills from analytical or critical evaluations. An understanding of language is treasured, and those who have mastered it have built a strong foundation upon which intellectual advancement and accomplishment can be laid. Rhetoric often serves as a primary means for this application: A way to define in order to convince.

Dana says, "I do not believe that rhetoric is a way of knowing truth as meaning rhetoric is a way of discovering and creating truth for oneself. I believe that rhetoric is a way of expressing and defining objective truth which is already established." I agree. Rhetoric does not create for us what already exists (or what does not exist); it serves to simply define or clarify it. Like Dana, I think rhetoric can help advance or sustain "positions made powerful through the proof and standard established in truth as the basis and force of the argument." Without language, without words, rhetoric does not exist. Truth, however, exists regardless of a means to put it to terms. Rhetoric can be defined, but truth must always be beheld.

Melody

Inauguration Speech

As was discussed in class, I think that Bush's speech was lacking significant logos, needed more ethos, and contained pathos appropriate for the speech and audience.
Although it was evident that his theme was freedom/liberty, the terms were not clearly defined. Instead, Bush let his audience create their own definitions through the guidelines of his descriptions of historical freedom/liberty. He did mention some actions he intended to take to secure American freedom, although he did not go into specific detail; however, I think that for an inauguration speech that is not necessary.
Because he is the president and this is his second term, Bush had an established ethos. Perhaps he could have strengthened and developed it by explaining his past and future policies, and addressing some of the dissenters.
Pathos appealed to the American people by giving some history of our freedom and promoting its retention. Freedom is something that is unquestionably valuable to all people everywhere, so this appeal to emotion cannot be denied.
Bush's introduction was epideictic, his reminder of the history of the US with him as Commander in Chief was forensic, and his statements of purpose and action were deliberative.

go political articles! woo!

It was not difficult for me to pick a text/speech/article to dissect. “The Day the Enlightenment Went Out” was one of my favorite political articles to come out during the election year. It was written by Gary Wills and was published on November 4, 2004 in the New York Times.

After reading Leff’s “Habitation,” I see that there is no end goal to this article except to educate. The neo-Aristotelians might even argue if it could be considered rhetoric, since it was not written in and of itself, as a contained piece of art. I prefer the neo-Sophists definition, myself. The reference in one of the web blogs that compared rhetoric to a car that needs to be driven to be useful was very appropriate, thanks Kevin. This would be the telos of the article…it is information to be used, a car to be driven, a bridge built to cross, etc. Whatever the metaphor, it is still an artful and educated appeal to reason and heart. As Wills says, in not so many words, not even the Dalai Llama wants to live in an un-enlightened world.

He uses logos and pathos and ethos, just like anyone. Perhaps he has a tone of bitterness in there as well, and I feel many who were not Bush supporters could relate to his tone. He starts with logos while telling the reader about how many states prefer the Virgin Birth to Evolution. He goes into more detail than I will here. Then, he moves on to a bit of forensics, describing a court case involving evolution that led us to where we are currently on the subject. He has his ethos when he writes of a conversation he has with the Dalai Llama (if that doesn’t build your credibility, I don’t know what will.)

It could be argued, but I feel that he uses a sort of pathos to appeal to our logic at one point. He is comparing America to her enemies, and he states:

‘Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage a secularity, a religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein’s Sunni Loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.’

It is a weird sort of pathos. Normally, when one hears words such as “religious intolerance” and “fear and hatred,” one automatically feel sorry for those who must experience such terrible things. He uses it and turns it on us…logos immediately kicks in and by the end of his article, you feel as if you’re driving a new car toward a purpose and not just looking at a painting.

Thanks again for the car reference, that was nice! The article can be found at:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-25.htm

jillian

Bush's Inaugural Speech

To start off with, the speech was undoubtedly deliberative. Not only did President Bush make it very clear that he had a particular thing he was trying to acheive for our nation and others, but all of his speech fell into a deliberative tone. Majority of his comments were directly focused on this "end" result of peace and liberty for all the world. My major criticisims were the redundency of the speech and the goal that lacked steps in acheiving that goal. As far as the redundency, I personally felt irritated listening to his speech and found it difficult to pay attention completely to what he was saying all the way through. I found myself questioning how many times can you find to say the same thing, but saying it in a different way. The issue of the goal without the steps to achive that goal was my most prevalent problem during the elections and debates as well. Both Bush and Kerry knew what they wanted to acheive, but neither really defined the steps to get there. As a political figure, especially the President, I beleive there is a responsinility in laying down the agenda in a clear fashion so that everyone knows what to expect for the next four years.
Bush's speech was very general, as were his uses of pathos. He gave just very braod and general ideas of pathos in his speech such as freedom, liberty, civil rights, slavery, and "we" as Americans. As for his use of ethos, he gave some religious references as well as past political figures such as Abraham Lincoln. He did however seem to play largely on the fact that he is the President of the United Staes, and that he has been for the past four years as well. The use of logos in his speech was also slim. He gave few instances of things that happened in the past and techinally indisputable references, however they again were very general.
Over all, his speech was fairly affective in expressing the goal he feels we as a country need to acheive, but I'm not sure it did much more than that.

Jon Stewart's W&M graduation speech

In light of the seriousness of the Presidential debates, protests and inauguration, I chose a different sort of speaker to critique for this assignment. On May 21, 2004 Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, spoke to the graduating class of 2004 at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg Virginia. He was also receiving an honorary doctorate at this time. The mood of the speech was expectedly light beginning with a comment on how “crushingly dull” the ceremony was thus far along with addressing the lack of comfort of the robe he was wearing saying underneath he was experiencing “the same conditions that primordial life began on this earth.” The catalyst from sarcasm to actual speech was when he responded to the fact that he was getting an honorary degree for doing nothing. He said “as a person, I am honored to get it; as an alumnus, I have to say I believe we can do better.” This was the tone of the rest of his speech as he spoke on various issues such as the world being broken by his generation and the fact that it was up to the generation of the class of 2004 to fix it. He spoke of how he felt when he graduated; scared, shell-shocked, mediocre but all the while gave hope that the choices of these students would help them in real life which started after college. He said “College is something you complete. Life is something you experience… Success is defined in myriad ways, and you will find it…” All in all, Mr. Stewart’s speech was successful, but in more of a poetic sense. He evaluated his audience and what the wanted and needed to hear along with what would keep them awake going along with what Leff spoke of in The Habitation of Rhetoric. He praised the students for their accomplishments and gave them some direction for the decisions of their future. He wasn’t necessarily persuading any sort of argument except in the issue of life in the real world. He encouraged the students to make their own decisions and become enlightened. His speech was pleasing to the ear and conveyed the elements of a great poetic mimesis (plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and melody) but didn’t fit the profile of a rhetorical speech unless you argued that he was proposing enlightenment. Jon Stewart closed with some additional words of encouragement when there is confusion and instability, using the illustration of 9-11 and the words that Mayor Giuliani said to New York City “‘you’ve got to get back to normal. We’ve got to show that things can change and get back to what they were.’” Stewart said that he was exiting his building and saw a man playing with himself on the stoop and it was in that moment when he thought “you know what, we’re gonna be okay.” This speech provided the students and William and Mary with an inspirational way to get their diplomas and some entertaining reading for myself.

Leff and Scott Readings

Leff’s article discussed how rhetoric has evolved among many groups. Although these groups may disagree on the place of rhetoric in society, both agreed that the process of rhetoric is more significant than the end product. The article also showed how rhetoric is used in many aspects today other than the political realm. Therefore, anyone can use rhetoric as a method of persuasion. Scott’s article shows how the ideas of others can define rhetoric and focuses on knowing what is certain or true. He defines rhetoric as something cognitive which can be used to further demonstrate this truth that one must experience and create for themselves.
Within context, I believe that president gave an effective speech. However, I was most displeased with his pathos. I think this is a result of my personal opinions of Bush and his presidency. I did not get the emotional appeal that I was expecting which was more time spent on discussing the war and those who have lost their lives and others who are suffering.

Habitation of Rhetoric

First of all, I must admit a personal disclaimer that the language and discussion of these essays were very dense and complex. Therefore, if I have somehow missed the point of either of these discussions, this should come as no great shock to you all.

I must say, however, that I was intrigued by the discussion of the habitation of rhetoric. It seems that the discussion focuses on rhetoric as an action, as opposed to a substantive "thing." Personally, I developed an illustration of rhetoric as a car; alone, its worthless. However, if you have roads to drive on and places to go, it becomes the action that takes you there. The article states, rhetoric is a "form of action that generates or manages material without ever resting in material embodiment." Its a hard concept to understand, but as simply as possible, its a driving force.

The article reads, "since it is a pure force, it is a container that constantly shifts its own configuration as it responds to circumstances, social interest, or the free play of linguistic whimsy." Thus, rhetoric is not a substantive form that is fixed in time and place. Instead, its an adaptive tool, or "formula" if you will, that is molded into the situation at hand. For example, Andrew Young's speech was molded around the MLK celebration as well as current events in our world today. Therefore, rhetoric is like clay words that are molded around our present circumstances to generate action.

One last point in Habitation of Rhetoric that I thought was an enlightening point was the concept of a message. The article reads, "a message is an abstracted thing, distanced from the voice of the speaker or the hand of the writer, embedded only at the point of its impact." Again, I felt this point was intriguing because a message isn't something that you can write it out. Its a collaborative product of an entire unified speech, or composition. Theme-like if you will. You can only determine the message after you have read or heard. Thus, rhetoric works to bring words and thoughts alike together to yield a message. Where is the message? Embedded at the point of impact with the individual, where the message connects with you.

Essentially, rhetoric is an action, a sort of process, to produce "the effect" and it habitates within words, speeches, and compositions to cause something to place that will yield a change.

Leff and Scott

Leff discusses the idea of what rhetoric is. He explains the previous views of rhetoric including the neo-Aristotelian and neo-Sophistic views. Lett contrasts the two views of the neo-Aristotelians and the neo-sophists as they define rhetoric. Neo-Aristotelians call rhetoric a "process confined within some larger domain from which it draws its substance" yet neo-sophists deem rhetoric as the "unbounded action of process itself". Both believe that rhetoric is a process, therefore the conclusion is unimportant, as long as one successfully follows the correct process of rhetoric. Also, it is important to note that rhetoric is not contained in any particular field; it can be used outside of politics. Rhetoric is fixed like stars in a relative sense. Rhetoric will always retain its intention to persuade, yet the way and to what its strategies are applied does alter.
Toulmin argument to determine what is certain now and what was certain at a different time, flows as follow. Anne is Jack’s sisterAll Jack’s sisters have red hair.So Anne has red hair. Toulmin that this is only certain if you are looking at all Jack’s sisters.

Leff and Scott

I’m not even going to pretend that I understood everything Leff addressed in his "Habitation of Rhetoric." However, there were some points he made that seemed clear enough to me. In starting out, he contrasts the two views of the neo-Aristotelians" and the "neo-sophists" regarding rhetoric. One considered rhetoric as a "process confined within some larger domain from which it draws its substance" while the other saw rhetoric as the "unbounded action of process itself" (53). While rhetoric has been widely used in the realms of politics, I would, however, agree with the neo-sophists who viewed rhetoric as not being contained in or bound to any particular field. In a broader sense (and in congruence with the neo-sophists), I believe rhetoric has the ability to cross all plains of human discourse and form itself to whatever subject it comes across. If there are reasons to persuade, rhetoric will serve as the means to reach that end. As Leff says, "[rhetoric] must retain the freedom to encounter subjects, occasions, and audiences" in order to meet the demands of each situation (62). Scott similarly understands the flexible nature of rhetoric. He defines truth as "not something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which [it is found]" (138). Rhetoric, too, from this perspective, is fixed like stars, "only in a relative sense." Though rhetoric may maintain certain similar characteristics throughout all mediums in its intention to persuade, the way in which and to what its strategies are applied can vastly vary.

The Nature of Truth

Leff and Scott both went into some interesting territory with their essays. It was easy to see how the Aristotelian idea of rhetoric that Leff started out discussing is visible in the real world context. Political rhetoric is everywhere. The only non-theoretical things we've examined have been have been infused with the political as they worked to persuade the intended audience of something. However, since Leff is opposed to the too limiting definition of rhetoric associated with the neo-Aristotelians, I'll move on to the ideas he's trying to push.
Leff's consideration of rhetoric as a process that is not a concrete thing stems from the the neo-sophistic and accordingly is reminiscent of Poulakas. It is somewhat difficult to consider rhetoric in the terms Leff sets before us. If rhetoric exists in a process and is an activity in its purest form, it becomes difficult to consider studying it when the physical examples of the rhetoric are, by their nature, pushing one into the rigid Aristotelian model of examining speech as unit for analysis. The danger of examining the thing instead of the speech act as a live moment seems to be the possibility of losing the art in it.
Nuance is lost when and the binding characteristic of decorum is overshadowed. The idea of decorum as the center of all rhetoric is remarkably simple and applicable. It is easily present in all discourse, perhaps most noticeably when it is absent, and it is defined by its relationship to the present and rhetoric as an action.
I found Scott's piece interesting in the way that it seemed to have so little to do with rhetoric at points. I understood how if truth is apparent and readily available rhetoric has little value. It was the framing of the argument in terms that really struck me. There was almost a moral imperative to accept the uncertainty he was defending. Uncertainty as the reason for toleration and acceptance of personal responsibility is an idea I'm familiar with, and I suppose it surprised me to encounter those ideas in the context of rhetoric. The argument for rhetoric was almost lost in the idea of how to understand truth and face a multitude of uncertainties in the world. This essay made me think about the philosophic roots of rhetoric more than the previous ones.

Response to Leff and Scott Readings

The discussion what exactly rhetoric is and what it can be used to discuss can lead to a truly rhetorical conversation. Leff discusses the idea of what exactly is rhetoric (which is getting more complicated every time I read this book). He explains the previous views of rhetoric including the neo-Aristotelian and neo-Sophistic views. The neo-Aristotelians view rhetoric as a thing contained; Donald Bryant also shared this view in his 1953 definition of rhetoric as “the rationale of informative and suasory discourse (55).” These two definitions point to rhetoric as a type of discourse which was dignified by its product.
The neo-sophists, however, thought of rhetoric as the containing force. Bryant’s later (1973) definition agreed with this thought. In his second description, Bryant points to rhetoric “as the rationale of the informative and suasory in discourses (55).” These new definitions lead to a shift in the basis of rhetoric from the product to process. It was now of little consequence to what conclusion you arrived as long as you successfully followed the process of rhetoric.
The process is basically the concern of Scott’s essay. In this essay, Scott uses the ideas of many different men to try to define what can be considered rhetoric and what is simply a stating of certainties. In order to separate the two types, one must first determine what is certain. Toulmin suggests one way is to determine what is certain now and what was certain some time ago. He uses the example argument:
Anne is Jack’s sister
All Jack’s sisters have red hair:
So Anne has red hair.
Toulmin then points out that this is only certain if you are currently looking at all Jack’s sisters.
The many examples and explanations of what exactly rhetoric is and when it can validly be applied express the true use of the art.

From Lee Hall, with Love

As an architecture major I was pleased with the title of Leff’s article, The Habitation of Rhetoric; he brought to my mind the idea of a homeless wanderer who cannot find a place (not just a space, as we archies like to clarify) of his own. There is a difference, as Leff describes; the space for rhetoric had been, for a long time, one of some secondhand form of expression, that is, there was nothing to prove “a rhetorical product in the generic sense that poem designates a poetic product” (57). With no use, then, naturally rhetoric as an art was not taken very seriously. Leff argues that the place for rhetoric is not the same as it is for poetry, or for other means of communicating for that matter; rhetoric is different in that “rhetorical discourses [are] substantive in themselves” (58). Scott agrees with Leff in that rhetoric is important, and that it is distinguished from other forms of communication – but he goes so far as to say that “rhetoric may be viewed not as a matter of giving effectiveness to truth, but of creating truth” (135). The act of speaking creates experience, then knowledge, then contingent truth.

The story in Leff’s article, of course, and his general style of writing was useful in helping me to understand what he was saying; Scott was more complicated and I could tell he’d read his Derrida. Ultimately, however, once Scott’s article was waded through his ideas seemed more relevant to me (at this point in time) than Leff’s, because now rhetoric is a part of the curriculum at most universities, and Leff’s purpose for writing was largely to defend the case of rhetoric. Scott raises the big questions, tackling the concept of universal truth, grappling at it just as the ancients did, but knowing that if they’re right he is grappling at uncertainty anyway. And today, when the nations of the world are undergoing globalization these questions are intrinsic – how does a world with differing ideas of truth operate together peacefully? If everyone can agree that there is no certainty, no universal truth that will not change, then perhaps there will be peace. That time will be long in coming, however, and the same question (is there anything all humans can be certain of?) will arise over and over, only in ever-changing forms.

Response to a speech of my choice- Hillary Clinton's speech on Women

Despite the challenges Hillary Clinton faced while her husband was President of the United States, she continuously remained a credible, admirable, and respectable leader of our country, especially where women’s issues were concerned. The speech I chose was given by Hillary Clinton in China, regarding the treatment of women around the world. The speech appears to have mostly epideictic and deliberative qualities. It is epideictic in the fact that she praises women of the world and their sacrifices they have made for the good of their families. It is deliberative in the fact that she emphasizes that there is a need for change in regard to how women are respected and treated by the rest of the world. Her goal of the speech is to encourage her listeners to take action and “bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world- and in so doing, bring new strength and stability to families as well”. As she says, “when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish” as well. In my opinion, she does an incredible job of establishing ethos, with the numerous mentions of her involvement with organizations, such as the United Nations Development Fund for Women, and with the list of hardworking women she has encountered in several other countries such as Denmark, South Africa, Bangladesh, and Belarus. At the same time she is establishing ethos by mentioning the women she has met, she does a great job of developing pathos. She lists the work they are doing everyday, such as promoting literacy and better healthcare, building democracies, and working just to ensure their children are safely cared for. She evokes sympathy from the audience as she mentions that the work done and contributions made by these women are being ignored and the women are not being acknowledged for their efforts. She stresses that women are being undervalued and the audience has no choice but to feel for the women who give so much of their time to better the lives of others. Logos is effectively used with her statistics of the rate of illiteracy among women and the noting of the large amounts of abuse they suffer. Knowing that the troubles of these women are indeed facts, leads the audience to feel even greater sympathy for this unrecognized suffering gender. Hillary Clinton uses this speech to convince her audience that our world is in desperate need of a change in how we regard women. I think she does an excellent job of convincing her audience.

On "The Habitation of Rhetoric"

Michael Leef attempts to explain two different approaches to rhetoric. The neo-Aristotelians view rhetoric as an art that is focused around politics. Because of the restrictions around rhetoric, neo-Aristotelians regard rhetoric as being contained. The neo-sophists view rhetoric in a different way. Instead of seeing the process of rhetoric as something shutin, neo-sophists view rhetoric as an art that needs to be expanded. Leef not only discusses the differences in the two opinions on rhetoric, but also the very few ideas they have in common. Both perspectives believe rhetoric to be an art of process. Where the neo-Aristotelians focus around rhetoric being confined to a domain, neo-sophists sees the process over various domains.
What Leef was talking about was very confusing to me. The story he told helped some with the whole idea of how he was trying to present the different views on rhetoric. Even though the narrative gave me a better understanding of the history of rhetoric, I still had a hard time following him when he started talking about neo-Aristotelians, ne0-sophists, and the different definitions of rhetoric.

My poor head.....(REALLY long, sorry)

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what exactly we're supposed to post blogs on, so I'm just going to blog to my little heart's content.

Today's subject, reflecting on Pres. Bush and his rhetoric:

If I may preface this by saying that I am not a rabid Bush hater. The only reason I am not is that I have the unfortunate affliction of believing that there exists the possibility that he actually believes in what he says.

People laud him for being a simple man with straight-forward values. If anything, his inaugural address is evidence of that. What I want to suggest is that perhaps simplicity can be deadly when one's actions affect, oh, say, about six billion people.

Bush is not the anti-Christ. Bush is not Hitler. However, there's two sides to every story, and, for example, if you're from East Timor, El Salvador, Guatamala, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. then maybe those comparisons seem a little more palpable. Even Germany, I can tell you that a lot of Germans think it's eerie/scary that we sing our national anthem before sporting events and even during prayer services held in a National Cathedral (i.e. the prayer service the morning after Bush's inauguration). I don't mean to imply that religion should never be present in politics rather that are numerous instances where intense nationalism/patriotism has been the catalyst for some of the most appalling deeds in history (see World War II) and that it also implies some sort of intrinsic difference among people which I don’t believe exists.

I've already said too much, and this is just the preface.

I'm just going to use specific examples from the Address to illustrate my point:

- "For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat."

Here is the first of what I believe is Bush’s attempt to establish pathos. He doesn’t use emotional stories as examples, like we’ve seen before (as I’ll illustrate in all three of the types of arguments). Instead he uses generalizations that have no definition. One man’s tyranny is, clearly, another man’s democracy.

The idea behind a statement like this is that every man wants to be safe from tyranny, hatred, murder, violence. In general, everyone wants to be “safe.” The problem with pathos is that it amounts to nothing if there’s no logos. He never provides even one example of his logic. Sure, he assures us that we will walk beside and aid any country/people wanting freedom from oppression. He never says what he means by the walking of United States. By not defining anything he says, he will always be right.

- "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."

Again, pathos. Everyone knows that in one sense freedom is what dethrones tyrants, but, on the other hand, it’s the freedom of one man that causes him to say, “I’m free to do what I want, and because I have the ability, I’ll control you.”

This is what I feel are Bush’s lies of omission (and he’s definitely not alone in doing this. This is a favorite pastime of politicians, and not to mention none other than Mr. Michael Moore). To use tag words phrases or images disproving your antithesis.

- "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth."

Pathos: He’s making allusions to what our Declaration of Independence says, trying to bind us together. Unfortunately, he’s neglecting that (I believe it’s fairly widely known) we didn’t really act on what we “proclaimed” for the first, say, 200 years of our existence as a country. I guess that means no logos.

- "This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities."

I could agree with this statement more. It shouldn’t be a task of arms, but he hasn’t shown that he believes in what he says. He says freedom should be chosen and “defended by citizens,” well that’s what the insurgents in Iraq truly believe they are doing.

Furthermore, I believe it’s safe to say, he’s acknowledging the fact that it must be the population of a country that institute a democratic form of gov’t. So…what are we doing forcing democracy where there wasn’t a popular movement. Sure, the people may have wanted it, but we can’t do it for them. This has been seen time after time since the fall of the Soviet Union (see Botswana, in relation to nearly EVERY other country in Africa).

- "My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve and have found it firm."

He’s right, this is his duty. On the other hand, I think the key word in this statement is “some,” because many have tested our resolve, and “some” have found it firm. It’s becoming clear that if you are significant enough as a threat, we’ll walk on eggshells when your around.

For example, recent estimates say that China has over 500 ballistic missiles lined along the coast of the Strait of Taiwan. Not only that, it has increased its long range missile capacity so as to be able to strike US military bases in Japan and Guam.

The facts that (1) the US has promised to aid Taiwan in the case that China were to attack it (who has been trying to break from Communist China for the last, I think, 60 years to become a sovereign Democratic nation), (2) China is more openly increasing its strike capabilities towards American interests, and (3) that the US has done little to stop all of this (in fact, quite the opposite: last week the US gov’t sold 400 Hellfire missiles to Taiwan…if that’s any illustration of peace), and (4) the US has not called for “pre-emptive strike” against China show that perhaps Bush isn’t doing what he should where he should OR applying the same rubric to all nations.

OKAY, I’ve got to stop here. I had about five or six more quotes, but I think I’m being repetitive. I’m not even really sure that I’m talking about rhetoric at all.

My whole point is that I don’t believe Bush ever established a firm instance of pathos, ethos, or logos. He used lies of omission and the connotative meanings of words to appeal to people.

I’ll end with a quote I thought was really funny:

- "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self."

In the words of Robin Williams in reference to Ronald Reagan’s quote “What would this country be without this great land of ours”: “Excuse me, Mr. President, in the dictionary under “redundant” it says “see redundant.”

Sorry this is so long. I always get carried away with this kind of stuff.

comments on response

You claim that Ambassador Young's speech was "far to irregular to follow" yet you seem to follow it quite well in your notes. Your response is a near perfect outline to a speech where the objective was not to "decide" upon anything in particular. His objective was to educate and challenge the way the world works. It is not his responsibility to make you think a certain way, last time I checked, we had that ability for ourselves. Mr. Young wants you to develop your own ideas, come up with a similar dream and pursue it with every breath in your lungs. His dream about the struggle of the have-not people of the world. In the 1960's those people were very close to him and it sparked a dream that he has never let go of. Now he uses his dream from the past and brings it into the present as a comment on the way the leaders of the United States interact with the world. Why did we have to go to war with Iraq? Why do those people need democracy? Ambassador Young is saying that people have never been equal, there are always groups who are ostricized, abandoned and/or forgotton. He used the illustration of the Hutu's and the Tutsi's in Rwanda to show that there are countries who were influenced by outside countries (in this case, Belgium) and this intrusion caused a holocaust in a poor, have-not society. This comment on the Iraqi situation is not meant to condone the actions of the president, it is simply a tool to provoke thought. When the Ambassador "rambled" about oil, Magic Johnson etc... he was giving constructive critisicm about the integrity of this country and the people we choose to be our fearless leaders. Finally, if the final line seemed to be rehearsed, it is probably because this is the mantra that the Ambassador seems to live by. He stands by his dream, a dream that he has had for many years and is determined to provide every audience with this challenge and word of encouragement because this is what he has experienced. His dreams have become reality from getting his hands dirty, doubting the popular, questioning the accepted and constantly challenging himself to grow and listen and learn. I'm sorry that you did not get as much out of the speaker as you could have, but know that your notes are the tool to this understanding and I hope that you get the opportunity to look over them and re-evaluate your evaluation of Ambassador Young.