Ask Not What Your Country Can do for You

In 1961, John F. Kennedy gave his inaugural address. It was powerful. Much of it is still quoted today. Few out there have not heard this quote- “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  This is one of many examples of antithesis from Kennedy’s address. . His primary audience was the United States public, the people at home (and the voters) who were the ones who could actually make a difference.  There was a second audience President Kennedy was addressing, and that audience was the world. Kennedy’s gave his inaugural address in the middle of the Vietnam War and the Cold War. The world was in a state of unrest, and Kennedy wanted all nations to come together, figure out their problems and find a way for peace. He used the rhetorical device antithesis in his speech, to drive home his points and cause the audience to think and ponder what he said. Listing, chiasmus and parallel structure were also used. President Kennedy used it to emphasis his purpose, which was to have peace in the nation and the world. He wanted to build the army so strong they would never have to use it. Using antithesis was effective, because people are more likely to remember catchy phrases, like “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but never let us fear to negotiate.” He uses antithesis to compare and contrast two ideas and unite them. This way, the idea sticks in our heads. It has a rhyming quality to it and helps us remember it more.

President Kennedy is appealing to both his audience, the United States public, by calling them to action without any offense. He tells the world that we as the United States are willing to negotiate for peace first, but we are willing to fight for our freedom still and the freedom of others. Why is President Kennedy’s inaugural address still relevant today? Despite his speech, some of these problems are still going on today. War is still happening. The world is still at unrest. He knew this and addressed this when he said, “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.” We need to hold on to this beginning and continue it.

Logical While Illogical

For my Rhetorical Analysis, I have chosen the article “Buying Into the Green Movement” by Alex Williams. The Authors rhetorical purpose is to convince his audience of fashionable green consumers that buying lots of green products don’t help, only reducing consumption lowers the carbon footprint significantly. I agree with the author, but I think his argument could be stronger.

First I will talk about his comparison of hybrid and gasoline cars. Initially it seems obvious that buying an expensive hybrid car that only gets 22 miles to the gallon on the highway isn’t reducing consumption, but his example of the LS 600h Lexus leaves out some important details. According to the Lexus website, this car has all wheel drive and 438 horsepower. I don’t know everything about cars, but what would an equivalent all gas engine of that power get on the highway? He compares an $11,000 Toyota Yaris with 40 miles to the gallon, and I doubt that car is all wheel drive or has horsepower anywhere close. If he wants to compare hybrid and purely gasoline cars mileage, then he needs them to be equivalent in power for it to be a level comparison. I do think that a more expensive car does take finer materials and more manufacturing processes to build, and that means a larger carbon print most likely, but you can find expensive gas or hybrid, and cheap gas or hybrid cars. The comparison must be to an equivalent powered car to make that it valid. I think a stronger argument would be that the Toyota Yaris is greener, and that just because something is advertised as green doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

Another piece of his argument that I found week was his this sentence; “Environmentalists say some products marketed as green my pump more carbon into the atmosphere than choosing something more modest, or simply nothing at all.” That’s like saying; some ice cream may cost more than cheaper ice cream, or simply no ice cream at all. It states the obvious and doesn’t further his point.

I agree that getting people to buy products by calling them green, even if they don’t really make a difference, is not helping. But I think this could have been argues with more logical reasons. So many fashionable green products don’t make a significant difference in the carbon footprint, but perhaps it is better than nothing.

Green Isn't Helping

            The article I have chosen for my Rhetorical Analysis is “Buying Into the Green Movement” by Alex Williams. The author’s rhetorical purpose is to convince his audience that, rather than buying numerous amounts of “green” or “eco” products, consumers should try and buy less in general, whether it’s green products or regular ones. He discusses how the amount of energy and resources it takes for eco products to even get to somewhere accessible does significantly more damage to the environment than the green products will do to save it. Sometimes, the products aren’t even helpful at all. Companies will label something as eco and another product will work just as well.

I think that he is successful at convincing the audience overall because of his use of imagery and euphemism, but he tends to be less successful by his appeal to a false authority.

The author uses fantastic imagery when he sets up an ideal situation at the beginning of the article that discusses using so many green products. The image he sets up is that the audience wakes up in their own personal mansion with solar panels and energy saving gadgets and then gets dressed in some biodegradable pant and then makes the decision to go on a vacation with less of a distance in order to reduce their carbon footprint.

            His use of euphemism is seen more at the end of the article rather than the beginning, but he tries to comfort his audience and to find a more middle ground by saying that most people who do buy green things don’t plan on making that the last step and by saying that it’s up to the individual to help do things to save the planet. It seems as though he’s trying to avoid hurting the feelings of the audience by using this to cushion their consciences. He’s trying to encourage them to make a difference, but he’s also trying to pin the lack of focus of this onto the environmentalist groups by saying that they stopped trying after they encouraged people to even go green. He’s saying that they aren’t pushing as hard because they just barely got some comfort in making people aware enough to use green things.

            Overall, his ideas and techniques are effective, but one thing that he does that is not so effective is his appeal to false authorities. He quotes people who have blogs and are activists about these things rather than consulting scientists and getting facts. By getting facts, he could make it more believable that green products don’t make that much of a difference overall. It would be more convincing than simply a few people with an opinion. He does make a convincing point overall, though and I do agree with his article. We must first reduce before we reuse or recycle. 

From Eight Men, to a Whole Nation

The article that I chose to analyze is the well known "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that was written from civil rights promoter Martin Luther King Junior. After being prosecuted and put into jail for fighting for black rights, King decided to write this letter to the eight men who put him there. However this piece of writing did not just stay between them. The letter became a popular convincing piece that has helped shape history. The letter was started on April 16, 1963. It began addressing like so; “My Dear Fellow Clergymen.” Martin first explains what he read that was recently published by the clergymen in a Birmingham newspaper. The men described King’s acts as being “unwise and untimely”. What I love about this writing is how clever he was in addressing it to these men who had such opposing views compared to his, however he also intended for this to be heard by many others, which with time it did. Rhetorically this letter is developed so well. He uses so many different types of rhetorical devices to convey his message not just using pathos, but ethos and logos as well. The purpose of this letter I believe was to defend his actions as well as others regarding to the fight for civil rights that was such a strong issue going on during that time. What stood out to me was the personal relations (pathos) that he used to connect and appeal to the audience. Specifically he ties it all together with such strong emotion in the ending of his letter, where anaphora is so strongly developed.  He proposed how people can fight for their rights that were currently unjust in a peaceful manner. Not only does Martin Luther King Jr. use anaphora but he uses repetition strongly to get his point through to those he is hoping to get this message across to. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. overall proved his point and succeeded in his purpose. Not only did he use rhetoric to connect to the black people who agreed with him, but he was also able to convince and introduce his beliefs to not only the clergymen that he intended for, but also the Americans who needed this piece to understand so much deeper the issues that were going on around them. Martin Luther King Jr. was not only an excellent speaker of rhetoric (I Have a Dream speech) but also a powerful writer that included so much ethos appeal to his authorities, pathos for emotional appeal and logos appeal regarding the Civil Rights conflict.

Gladwell Underwhelmed by the "Twitter Revolution"

I have chosen to analyze Malcolm Gladwell's article for The New Yorker entitled "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted". In this article, Gladwell shows concern that, with the rise of social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook, true activism may be dying out.

And understandably so!

I myself have sat in silent awe of the various causes that parade across my Facebook news feed, wondering how many of those little pixellated thumbs represent actual tangible contributions to resolving the issue on display. Evidently, Gladwell has had the same experience.

On my first read through, I must admit, I was convinced. As I read through again I was trying to understand why. Now, I might be biased: as previously stated, my own opinion is already along the lines of what Gladwell argues here, and I'll also admit, I have read several of Gladwell's books and I'm definitely a fan of his writing. But I like his writing because I generally find therein the same things that make his writing effective here: Malcolm Gladwell excels at introducing and supporting an idea.

I'm convinced and I imagine that many others who have read this article have been convinced. If you use social media and if you are concerned about the world around you, you are in this audience, and I think you would be convinced as well.

There's much that Gladwell does here to get my attention; and there's much he doesn't do to equal effect. To the latter point, I find Gladwell's voice to be distinctly lacking in condescension. There is no passion or putdowns here. The words used are not overly grandiose and above the typical reader of such a publication. In every way that matters Gladwell's tone is neutral and accessible--this piece is about the facts, not the feelings.

And about those facts, there's tons of them. Gladwell's primary means of persuasion in this article is evidence. Anecdotes and case studies are the backbone to his piece and everything else is just the means of stringing them together. As a result, there is really no excuse at any point to feel like the author is ranting about his own opinion. On the contrary, the presentations ultimate impact feels more like a grand unveiling of the truth. Under close scrutiny we must suppose there is always the possibility that these "facts" are selectively represented to make the authors point, but there is nothing I can see to betray such a possibility

The ultimate message is soundly presented: Perhaps we should be wary of contenting ourselves with internet activism and feeling like we are making a difference. Maybe we need to look at what it really means to stand up for something.

JFK: Establishing Unity and Peace

I chose to analyze John F. Kennedy's 1961 Inaugural Address. At this time in the country, many significant events were going on including the civil rights movement, space exploration with new technology, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the cold war. As a new president, Kennedy had to give a speech that would comfort people and let them know they were in good hands. So, Kennedy's purpose in this speech is to establish a sense of unity and peace among not only the United States, but also the whole world. He also convinces his audience to work together, each citizen doing his or her part, to reach this goal. I think Kennedy was successful in achieving this purpose through his use of rhetorical strategies including historical allusion, metaphor, chiasmus, and repetition. For historical allusion, he referred a few times to the American revolution and the founding of our country. This helped as a reminder that he has the same goal as the nation's founders and that he is just like the first presidents that are so well respected. Next, he used metaphors such as, "the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans" and "those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." These are ways that Kennedy helped convey some of his points in a more understandable way that is interesting to listen to. Kennedy also uses chiasmus in a couple of instances. For example,  he says, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate," and "ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." These are clever ways that Kennedy also used to get his point across. The first use of chiasmus shows how what citizens and the countries together can do to help establish peace: to negotiate. The latter use of chiasmus encourages citizens to do their part and work together to help accomplish the goals of the whole country. Lastly, Kennedy uses repetition to help effectively convey his purpose. He repeats "to those" many times in the beginning to explicitly address each group in his audience and then tell them what they can do to help. He later repeats, "let both sides" a few times followed by ways for two groups to negotiate and resolve conflict, therefor helping to establish peace. These are all ways that Kennedy uses rhetorical devices to help achieve his goal of establishing peace and unity in the country as well as the whole world.

A Creative Education

I chose Ken Robinson’s TED talk titled, “How Schools Kill Creativity.”  TED talks are speeches given by experts in a variety of fields. TED’s slogan is that its talks are ideas worth spreading. This creates an environment conducive to creativity and freedom of expression. Speakers discuss a wide range of issues and their personal stances on such issues. Robinson gave this TED talk during February 2006. Robinson is a noted authority on the subject of education, specifically creativity and human innovation. He has worked internationally to increase creativity and innovation. This background is important when considering Robinson’s argument. If he were not an expert in this field, his ideas, experiences, and conclusions would be thoroughly cast aside. However, he is an expert, he is knowledgable and he is suitable to be speaking on such a subject.

In this speech, Robinson argues that creativity is a critical part of education. Robinson feels that it is our responsibility to change the way we educate the future generations. One crucial subtopic of Robinson’s argument is that education of our children should be important enough to us to act when we see a problem. Without this Robinson’s argument would be completely invalid. He could discuss how creativity is being crushed in education, but it would have no effect on his audience without this piece Robinson is effective in his argument. The audience comes away with a changed view of creativity in education. Throughout Robinson’s speech, the audience evaluates their support of creativity and daily interactions with creative young minds. TED audiences tend to be a hand-pick diverse group of thinkers. While anyone who views these videos and reads the transcripts is a secondary audience, Robinson speaks primarily to the physical audience. He uses this fact to his advantage. Robinson utilizes rhetoric to reach his audience. One of his strongest appeals is to humor. He tells humorous anecdotes. He makes fun of his profession. He connects to the audience. Those who act upon his advice the most are parents, teachers, and education leaders. Robinson does not address any one country’s curriculum, rather he attacks education as a whole. He points out that this is not a new problem, but we can fix it today. Robinson’s argument is most effect when applied to the individual. His numerous anecdotes are crucial here. He tells stories of individuals who either used their creativity for good or exemplified the lack of creativity allowed in education. Robinson connects with each audience member to call them to action. He is completely effective in his argument. Now, years later, we can see the effect this speech and his subsequent work has made on education approaches internationally.