Upon reading Barack Obama's Inaugural Address, I was impressed with how he spoke in several ways.

First, I noticed that he infused some use of alliteration into the speech. For example, "Farms flourish" (par. 51), and "magnificent malls" (par. 64). I suspect that he used alliteration as a way to make his speech much easier listening.

I also was able to catch on to the ongoing imagery of water. For instance, near the beginning of his address, he says:

"The words have been spoken during the rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents" (par. 4)

Then, at the end of the address, he refers to the theme again: "Let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come..." (par. 70). This continuous metaphor seems to hold the whole speech together rhetorically.

What Do You Say to Millions of Men With the Power of God?

I was able to attend this General Conference's Priesthood session in the Tabernacle, which is right across the street from the Conference Center. I think my favorite talk was that of President Eyering, called "Be Ready." One aspect of his talk that stuck out to me was the way he wrote with consideration to his audience.

He begins by mostly addressing young men. For instance, he mentions things that would likely keep a young man listening: "It may be so small a thing as to keep careful minutes in a deacons or a teachers quorum" (par. 18) Later on, he says "In recent months I have heard deacons, teachers, and priests give talks which are clearly as inspired and powerful as you will hear in this general conference..." (par. 20).

However, President Eyering does not focus on young men throughout his whole speech. In paragraphs 30 and 31, he begins to address older men with the priesthood by teaching them ways to remain Christ-like and still be disciplinary: by doing it "in the Lord's way" (par. 30).

All in all, I was impressed with how he could reach out to all of his listeners individually. It means a lot to an audience if one can manage that.

A Story Etched into Memory -- the Power of Pathos

Recently, I was drawn to a specific address given by President Henry B. Eyring. He - very strongly - fortified the importance of preparation to my mind through the use of pathos. To get the full message, I encourage you to watch the video if you haven't, the text doesn’t do it justice. For the moment, I will analyze the text, and refer to the expression of speech if necessary.

To begin his talk, President Eyring decided to tell a story – a story so full of emotion that anyone paying attention will remember both the account and its moral. He spoke of a little girl that was thrown fifty feet by an oncoming car, and the call to give a blessing to this girl in the hospital. They were met with opposition, however, as he says,

"The doctors and the nurses only reluctantly let us reach through a plastic barrier to place a drop of oil on the one opening in the heavy bandages which covered her head. A doctor said to me, with irritation in his voice, 'Hurry with whatever you are going to do. She is dying.'” (par. 3)

President Eyring then summarized his feelings of the doctor in three, very powerful words. "He was wrong." After a slight pause (to let the emotional impact sink into the listeners), President Eyring began his address for the importance of preparing long before the time the priesthood is needed.

The details of his address, his vocal emphasis, and overall storyline appealed to the pathos of his talk. The reader/listener could comprehend the importance of his message simply by listening to the feelings they felt as they heard President Eyring speak. Readers can get a sense of the doctors' impatience and frustration, the faith and confidence of the child's parents, the determination of President Eyring and his partner, etc. He used the emotion of his story to leave a lasting impression and memory in those listening -- a prime example of tremendous pathos.

Throughout the rest of his address, President Henry B. Eyring covered two main ways for us to become prepared enough to exercise the priesthood: faith and confidence. He continued to use pathos, but in the context with strong logos and audience appeal.

While he spoke of faith, he gave the example of Nephi (Par. 10-15), showing his faith. Nephi himself had unshakable faith, and President Eyring quotes admirable attributes. Qualities -- confidence, determination, endurance, long-suffering, unshakable faith -- are some of the same that the audience is striving to perfect, and by bringing up Nephi's attributes, President Eyring connects with the thoughts, feelings, and goals of his listeners.

The pathos presented with President Eyring's second point, confidence, is achieved in a similar manner. He recognizes that his listeners at some point in time have felt regret, remorse, and felt "[dragged] down to doubt the existence of God." (par. 22) This phrasing is very important, because President Eyring could have written it much differently. Listeners could feel remorse over breaking the Word of Wisdom, watching a rated-R movie, but doubting the existence of God is out of the question for any person of faith. Thus, listeners are more willing and receptive to the direction of President Eyring. By using hyperboles to exaggerate his point, he can deliver his proposal for all priesthood holders to always be prepared.

Along those lines, we are instructed us to love, support, and show confidence in others, brings those around us up -- and ourselves in the process -- to believe more completely in God. As with faith, President Eyring knows the feelings and desires of his listeners, and gives positive response in the form of pathos with them.

President Eyring's address was both emotionally powerful and emotionally sound in message. The immense impact of a story of pathos and the personal effects of subtle feelings shows the extent of President Eyring's ability to use pathos to support his message. Even outside of the story, he shows us the strength and convincing power of pathos in the company of logos and audience appeal as shown in the use of hyperboles and desirable traits. All of these components lay the foundation for a lasting memory in the minds of the audience.

Prophet Avoids Repetitive Nature

The whole university rushed to the Marriott Center Tuesday morning - some as early as 8 a.m. for the 11 a.m. devotional by the prophet. The heavily concentrated Mormon population would take any chance they get to listen to the most credible man on the Earth. They wanted to hear the message which the voice of the Lord was about to announce.

What interested me was that this man, who could choose any of the popularly spoken topics of the church such as the importance of scripture study, keeping an eternal perspective, and maintaining your testimony, chose to talk about prophets he had known in his lifetime. I assume that he understood we already knew these vital spiritual messages - they have been ingrained in our minds so that they may become second-nature. Undoubtedly, they are still important because they are always commented about in General Conference to the general Mormon public.

Yet President Monson takes into account that the students at BYU are strong members (hence their choice of BYU as their education for the next four years). He assumes that we are aware of scripture study, keeping eternal perspective and maintaining our testimony. Hence, President Monson appeals to the well-informed, orthodox Latter-Day Saints by teaching them unfamiliar topics. Who out of the audience would have been able to supply such specific details of the prophets' personalities and attributes before hand? I conclude that not very many. By including specific details, students develop a stronger faith in the men who have run the church in the past and who built up the principles we are learning about today. President Monson pointed out the credibility of these men so their messages may become more applicable. He took a step further than lecturing a repetitive spiritual message. Instead, he gave meaning to the origin of these spiritual lectures we always hear. Because of this, students establish a foundation for future spiritual talks and greater depth of their application to their lives.

Clearly emphasizing a learning atmosphere, Monson discusses the lives of prophets that he knew. We typically look at the prophets as the most righteous men, and we look at the messages they have delivered in the past. However, President Monson includes real details such as their favorite foods and funny things they had said. In this way, the prophets of his time truly became real to us as students of a separate generation. We become familiar with the kind of people they truly were. These prophets were no longer so distant - they didn't appear as powerful, influential prodigies but instead, friendly and real people.

For instance, President Kimball exemplified a prophet who portrayed an average human being. In preparation for a meeting, he proceeded to stuff papers in his refrigerator in order to get his room clean. By using such an example, we came to love prophets we did not personally know - they became "real" to us. He also described the humility of President Kimball. He would wear the same shoes, no matter how worn out they were or if they had holes in them. Before we had President Kimball as a prophet of God and after we discovered he was a humble man, who had trouble with cleaning.

Monson exemplifies an excellent sense of audience awareness because he surprised everyone with his discussion of the prophets. By doing this, we all walked out of the Marriott Center with more confidence of the leaders of a church, and a deeper love for the men who they really were. I feel that because President Monson avoided repetition of lessons we hear in General Conference, we were able to learn more about the men who truly impacted our religion on a more personal level. President Monson helped us build a foundation of understanding for the prophets that built the principles of the church.

When writing goes wrong

So we have this article that we have been analyzing about Global Warming. Well, it's not quite as good as it looks. You see, the first time I read it, i didn't see much wrong with it. However, upon reading it more thoroughly, I found several logical fallacies hidden in his arguments.

First of all, we read paragraph 5, when he mentions an unusually hot summer that occurred last year to support his argument that the earth is warming up. However, how do we know what caused that hot spell? This is a good example of a cum hoc logical fallacy, because the writer is automatically assuming something that nobody knows for sure. Sure, it might be that the earth is getting hotter. But weather is not as predictable as people act like it is. This hot weather could be the consequence of sunspots, or altered ocean currents, or some other odd weather pattern that we will discover sometime in the next decade. Who knows?

Several times throughout the article, Lovelock mentions dramatic events that would occur if the earth warms up a relatively large amount. I find these arguments not as relevant as he thinks they are. There is no reason for the reader to believe that such events like "a four-degree rise in temperature" (par 4) or "a two-metre rise [in ocean levels]" (par 2) are even possible in the next century. The average global temperature rose only half of a Celsius degree between the years of 1900 and 1999 (see table 11.6. note: this website gets its statistics from NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy). At that rate, we have 800 years to worry. So really we don't have to worry, given that the average temperature will likely not simply continue in the same pattern--there are too many factors to take into account.

Humanity Walks Guiltless As Earth Rapidly Melts Away

There is no fence-sitting in Lovelock’s view of the Earth’s fate. As Blake said, Lovelock will attempt to say anything (even if I may not politically be correct) to show his readers we are headed for catastrophe. According to his uncited research, we are in imminent danger if the complacency of the world continues to be naïve of the clear and upfront issue of global warming. Not only does Lovelock, consistently throw startling statistics at the reader, he is also able to find the reader’s vulnerabilities and take a stab at them. Of course, the end of the world should be a vulnerability for all, but apparently, it is not. By describing the danger we are headed for, Lovelock announces that nuclear energy is the only plausible solution at this stage in the Earth's downfall. At the same time, readers need to be skeptical of all Lovelock's dramatic imagery and facts - he leaves no room for debate.

An Earth of six billion people, continues to rotate despite the carefree image we have created. He explains the urgency and danger if we do not act fast and if we proceed to act as if all is well. To emphasis its severity, he uses the ultimate symbol of fear, and danger – fire. “Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act” (par. 6). Using this simile, Lovelock is able to put a scary face on the consequences of global warming. We view a fire as uncontrollable and scary. A fire’s effects can leave agony and despair – just the message Lovelock is trying to convey.

Lovelock is so effective with his rhetoric because he also uses the language tool of overstatements in his article. He uses an exaggeration of imminent danger to prove a point. A typical interpretation of imminent danger would refer to a plausible threat within 24 to 48 hours. It seems unreasonable that global warming could even harm us, however Lovelock presents facts demonstrating how global warming has already harmed the Earth’s population. He states that 20,000 people died in Europe from a heat wave last summer. At first his exaggeration of imminent danger seems irrational. Yet when diving into the facts and logos Lovelock has presented, it is shocking that global warming has become a reality.

I have found that rhetorical questions can also prove to be very valuable as an author. It gives time for the reader to discuss the issue in their head before reading the author’s opinion. It also, allows for the reader to answer, more often than not, in the author’s favor of the issue. For example, Lovelock devotes the first half of his persuasive article to startling statistics and familiarizing readers to the issue with a bias spin to it. After all of this, he poses the question, “So what should we do?” (par.7). Clearly, the reader is going to be sensitive and announce in their minds a proactive solution – which is exactly what Lovelock aims for. He is attempting to win over supporters.

Finally, as a student aware of global warming, Lovelock was successful in breaking down my defensive wall to sympathize and realize the seriousness of the issue. Without a doubt, he uses imagery to describe the major cities of the world we see as landmarks, business capitals and places were destruction would not be found, as uninhabitable as the water levels continue to rise. He uses the symbol of unconquerable world capitals to show that even well-developed, protected and industrialized cities such as London, Tokyo, New York and Venice, are in danger. Any sort of protection and security that these cities are associated with, was destroyed in Lovelock’s article.

Essentially, Lovelock was effective as a writer and successfully advocated his opinion, yet reader's must realize the drama of his piece. Lovelock uses excessive exaggeration in addition to his language tools. Most importantly, he leaves no room for debate as he proposes nuclear energy as the only possible solution. One must be skeptical because the author gives no room for readers to think otherwise. In addition, readers must put up their guard because the author does not include any sources - who knows if all his facts are correct?

Overall, Lovelock used the language tools of similes, overstatements, rhetorical questions and imagery in order to promote the use of nuclear energy. He establishes his rhetoric as he suggests to his audience that the population needs to be informed and concerned with the imminent danger of global warming. By realizing this possible reality of this theory, readers will be more likely to accept nuclear energy as a solution, however they must not be misguided by his faulty points - we must be skeptical!

Nuclear energy has been accepted as a solution, but it has not put into action. The end of the world is dramatically being declared by Lovelock – and apparently it is not far away. Lovelock presented such an irony: we have led this Earth to its death by man’s way of self-destruction, yet none seem to care enough to change bad habits or adapt a solution.

When Apocalyptical Logic Backfires

This is the second of my two posts dealing with James Lovelock's article about global warming, the former concerning his logos. When I began reading his article, I followed his facts and agreed with his points, but in about the span of a paragraph, he lost all my trust as a reader and interest in his article -- the results of terrible logical fallacies.

The main two that I noticed involved Hasty Generalizations and Post Hocs. The generalization hit home the hardest when Lovelock said:

"[Nuclear energy] fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway..." (Par. 14)

The argument was valid up until the last sentence. Purely from a logic standpoint, the claim that one-in-three die of cancer is quite eye-catching, but there is no source to acknowledge where these statistics came from. Also, the way Lovelock’s voice comes across is that he is quickly generalizing facts he's heard and just putting a number onto paper. This is not conducive to his persuasion.

This quote also has unsound pathos. No matter what side of the fence you're on, no one wants to hear that comment put so blatantly. Lovelock's comment on cancer is emotionally unsound, and is distracting to the reader to say the least. For me, all I remember is the cancer comment -- I don't even remember the logic that lead up to that.

Another fallacy I noticed involved a Post Hoc: whatever happens second is a result of whatever happened first. On multiple occasions, Lovelock suggests that the reason politicians aren't behind stunting global warming and nuclear energy is because it isn't what the lobbyists/Greens want. This is a premature statement, because we don't incorporate all the inner-workings of the political world. True, these are viable reasons, but until we look more in-depth, it is just merely an assumption put into the minds of the readers.

Between these last two posts, James Lovelock presents a very solid defense for nuclear energy. Nevertheless, even the strongest fortress can be broken if it is built on fallacies.

The Logic Behind Apocalypse

My next two posts have to deal with the Global Warming article Lars had analyzed earlier. This first post will deal with the logical strengths and advantages of this article written by James Lovelock of the United Kingdom.

It is pretty safe to assume that most, if not all, educated people have heard of the issue of global warming. It usually carries a negative connotation, and Lovelock's writing is no exception. Compared to most arguments, however, Lovelock has strong factual backing, but sadly fails to refer to their sources.

Right off the bat, Lovelock refers to a prominent figure Sir David King, the UK's chief scientist, predicting the gravity of global warming on the world. At that time, he remarks that King's prediction did not draw a large amount of attention, but Lovelock continues to show evidence of a worsening climate. One such involved a heat spell in Europe during the summer of 2003. Nearly 20,000 people died of heat-related incidents. Some claimed this just a "deviation from the norm" (Par. 5), although Lovelock points out that climatologists of the time predicted this degree of deviation had a 1-out-of-300,000 chance of occurring.

To support his claim even more, Lovelock reports predictions that by 2100 A.D., the global temperature will rise 6 degrees-Celsius. In order to identify the magnitude of this change of temperature, the author shows that it would raise the sea level by seven meters -- enough to sink cities such as Venice, London, New York, Tokyo, and half of southern Florida.

As you can see, Lovelock’s article leans heavily on facts, because without them, no one would see reason to change. The data presented is very convincing, but at some times, the numbers make the reader think whether or not they are exaggerated. In a normal situation, a curious reader would follow the author’s references to read for themselves what exactly the data represents. Unfortunately, Lovelock has no references. For all we know, he could be making up the values just to scare us. Without citations, all of Lovelock’s argument is just convincing facts and not necessarily true facts.

James Lovelock's article contains an immense amount of support from recent research, studies, and other scientific reports – none of which we can verify. According to the stated information, awareness and action on global warming has increased over the years, but Lovelock does not think this will be enough to save the planet. By Lovelock's article, it is easy to understand why he thinks that nuclear power is the only way to save the world. He suggests that we don't have time to experiment with alternative energies, and that we already have a good, clean, and green solution to global warming -- nuclear energy.

Logical Fallacy of the Common American Citizen

Further analyzing Steve Duin's article, I believe there is a general logical fallacy he addresses that the nation has built up - that we as a country are becoming "socialist." Obama was elected as the democratic candidate. He certainly has begun to alter the administration so that the central government has gained much power through several of his programs such as Health Care. But ideas are thrown out that because of Obama's actions, our nation is becoming socialist. As Duin says, we have developed a sense of skeptism towards the way our governemnt is run and we have turned a simple word such as community into a much scarier princple of socialism: "in the movement to turn "community" into a shameful code word for socialism, you feel the desperation of those who believe their political fortunes are best served by a forlorn and prolonged skepticism" (par. 13). Despite the fact that Obama is centralizing the federal government, it is virtually impossible for the United States to become socialist like its mother country, Great Britain. When people use this argument against Obama, they are just demonstrating their lack of knowledge.

Many people may refer to this notion (that the country is becoming communist) because they fear. The are unsure of the transition of one president to the next and they fear change from their complacent state. Citizens refer to this logical fallacy and their lack of knowledge becomes transparent.

The point is that Duin recognizes that citizens need this sense of community. Duin says we live in "an ear-plugged society in which everything we need -- including intimacy -- arrives via the iPhone" (par. 10). Overtime we have been separated by the influences and advances of technology. We need to revive a sense of unity, a sense of oneness over the individualism that has driven or economy to rock bottom. Because Obama is choosing to strengthen certain government programs, does not mean he is redefining the American ideals that this country was founded on! We must overlook the childish remarks people make when they do not fully understand the politics of Obama, especially when they talk out of fear. It is unethical and clearly a lack of persuasive rhetoric when the general public relies on manipulation to portray their view.

Society needs to be charitable about our opponent's intentions and we must establish trust. Although I may not agree with the political ideology of the author, I do understand his frustrations. I can see how polarization of the political parties is occurring in the United States. We can "agree to disagree" and establish intellectual humility but we cannot become accustomed to mistrusting citizens of the other political party. On this basis, politics will become more of a mess. The goal is the pursuit of truth and by discovering the truth, we can arrive at the best way to govern our country.

Arrogant Columnist Loses Audience Members

I believe that we all agree that one of the nation's most recognized columnists is highly qualified in all areas of rhetoric. As we have already mentioned, Steve Duin is successful in persuading his readers through use of kairos and language tools (as Blake has mentioned in two of his earlier posts). However, at times even the most widely recognized columnist can lose audience members due to his arrogance of opinion and his assumptions of their knowledge.

Duin emphasizes the importance of community especially in this era. He does an mediocre job of using supporting evidence that this is the case. Duin points out that now more than ever we are experiencing times of isolation created by technology (iPhones, texting, emailing etc.) This is undeniably the truth, however I feel that he could use more emotional emphasis (pathos) to fully enhance this point.

Another example of how Duin lacks logos is how he does not fully align his readers with his examples. He refers to Roosevelt High, I assume it's a local school in Portland. He says: "One reason I remain fixated on the efforts -- especially those of the congregation at SouthLake FourSquare -- to bring stability to Roosevelt High is that the adventures cross the racial, social and material lines that so frequently divide us" (par. 16). This is the entirety of background information he gives concerning the "communal effort Obama is promoting" (par. 18). From this, I can infer that Duin is seeing an improvement in stability within Portland's local high school. For me, I am still left with the question of specifics: how is this being done at Roosevelt High? What efforts towards "stability" are being made? In this way, Duin assumes his audience is local and already has background knowledge. Yet he is a nationally recognized columnist. Obviously people from differing areas are going to read his work.

Blake's comment is right - in many cases, Duin is brief in order to promote readers to develop their own opinion. This is clear in his use of language tools, especially with rhetorical questions such as, "A president who 'believes in community above individuals'? In the sacrificial giving that serves those who can not fathom your prosperity?" (par. 20). This begs readers to think and question. Duin is undoubtedly not a writer who hands an opinion to you, but prefers readers to formulate their own based on what they've read. Acknowledging this, I feel that with the reference to Roosevelt High there could be more background information seeing as he uses it as his main example. If readers cannot understand Duin's main example, they will hardly be able to understand the reality of his concept.

Finally, and most importantly, Duin can be a very offensive author for those who disagree with his political ideology. Within the introduction to his article, Duin refers to his opponents as a "right wing noise machine" (par. 3). Not only is this a slap in the face to any conservative reading his article, Duin completely obliterates any possibility of acknowledging "fence-sitters" of the issue. In a major way, Duin does not acknowledge the opposing side and doesn't seem to make any attempt to find common ground. Furthermore, Duin does not establish trust. As we know, the only way to debate an ethical argument is to be charitable about the opponents' intentions. In no way is Duin open-minded and accepting - he is blunt and "political correctness" is somewhat absent. Hence, Duin does not exemplify an admirable sense of audience awareness.

Overall, the lack of community he expresses has potential to be such a powerful argument that could convince many fence-sitters of his opinion. Steve Duin is very abrupt with his points and expects the audience to fully understand the issue and the examples he refers to. Duin's work could be an all-inclusive article addressing political unity, but within the first few lines of his article he makes it clear that he is in no search for common ground. He is relying too heavily on his rhetoric status or credibility (ethos) while his argument lacks presence of logos or audience awareness.

Sarcasm, Shmarcasm

Upon reading "Ending our Splintered Isolation," by Steve Duin, I was immediately struck by the way he manipulated the readers' emotions.

For instance, throughout the whole article, he uses a large amount of sarcasm. However, as an average innocent reader, it wasn't apparent until the end. Throughout most of the article, I'm thinking, "can this guy be for real?" until the end. I was quite impressed by his audacity to tackle such individual emotions.

The point is that his form of getting his argument across to the reader is by indirectly criticizing the values of the general public. For example, as he speaks of public skepticism: "That sullen anger is easier to hold on when we sport a grudge or the smoldering suspicion that some woebegone loser wants to steal off with our benefits..." (par. 15).

I think his favorite line was "our splendid isolation" (par. 4 & 14), a direct attack on those who spend more time in their own world rather than that of the World itself. Walking down the sidewalk, it's hard not to notice how frequently we as students do just that. Sometimes, you just need to remind your mind that hey, those mountains look incredible with snow! Or wow, people are very unique...

Think about it.

Changing the Views of Isolationism from Controversial to Irrational

For this analysis, I once again review Steven Duin's article about the scrutiny of community in the United States today. This time around, I'm focusing on his language and the way he uses his words to get the message across.

In short, Duin wrote a column for a Portland, Oregon newspaper, detailing his thoughts of some of the public's views on President Obama's actions when dealing with the community. He views their thoughts to be unreasonable for this particular time in our nation's history, and argues that focusing on the community rather than the individual is what is best for our country. When readers begin his article, they have their own take on whether the individual is more important than the community or vice versa. The way Steve Duin writes, however, makes you feel as if his view is the only view that can be deemed acceptable. This is accomplished through very intricate uses of language tools.

One such vastly apparent tool is Duin's use of imagery and figurative meanings. Statements like "this train of thought rumbles out of the right-wing noise machine" (par. 3) works to not only identify which group thinks that individualism is more important than community, but also discredits the source. Duin could have written that right-wing citizens hold this view, but he decides to include statements like these -- ones that Duin obviously deems "radical" or "irrational" -- happen all the time and that right-wing perspectives are always just seeking attention. A statement like this can, however, hurt his audience, especially those that have the views of Duin’s “right-wing noise machine” (Phoebe has already addressed that perception, if you want to read a more in-depth look).

Immediately following this segment, Duin continues to write things such as "Unions do the devil's work" (par. 5) to give samples to the readers of why right-wing views are drastic and excessive, and that his view on the argument is fairer. The usage of imagery runs rampant in this article.

Another language tool Duin uses lies near the end of his writing. Keeping with the same tone present throughout his paper, Duin's final message is to leave a few questions in the mind of his readers. Using rhetorical questions like, "[A president who believes] in the sacrificial giving that serves those who cannot fathom your prosperity? I would hope so" (Par. 18-19) Duin words the situation to be favorable to his argument. No one wants to admit to prioritizing greed over humanitarianism, especially in a president, so of course the reader will want to agree with Duin's statement. Ending articles with statements like these proves to make Steve Duin's argument all the more powerful.

"Ending our Splintering Isolation" uses numerous other language tools, such as allusions and definite tone, to get Duin's point across. The article -- in its entirety -- is an amazing representation of what shaping the words and context of an argument to your benefit can do.

A Slightly Heated Topic

I thought I might read about something that really interests me this time, so I decided to go for the topic of Global Warming. The article I read, written by James Lovelock, dwells on the argument that the best way to combat the threat of global warming is to alter our main energy sources to that of nuclear power. Though I may not agree that global warming is occurring (I think scientists have come to a consensus by now that it is not just warming, but more a general climate change), Mr. Lovelock establishes a notable sense of logos throughout the article.

For example, I find a relation between the second and third paragraphs. In the second paragraph, Lovelock argues that soon Greenland will have melted. Then in the third paragraph, he argues that the Arctic will melt, and thence increase the rate of Greenland's melting.

Lovelock continues to support the theory of Global Warming, until he feels he has proved it enough. Then he is able to take all of that proof and apply it to his principal argument: that we should switch to nuclear power.

One thing I notice is that many of his arguments have more of a pathos-driven foundation. Such things as Florida drowning, cities flooding (can somebody say "Millenium?" Just kidding. But who knows?), ice caps melting, etc. are not really supported much by evidence. Lovelock is trying to scare his readers into believing him. The facts may not be true, and most of the audience knows that, but what if they are? That's the question that he is attempting to implant into our thoughts. It didn't work for me, though.

9/11 -- Connecting the Cold to the Children

Peggy Noonan's article "The Children of 9/11 Grow Up" has a very strong emotional pull to its readers, as Phoebe analyzed previously. Almost as interesting as the emotional-side of this article is the audience that it addresses.

After Noonan's opening paragraph, she begins to both personalize her story and direct her audience away from just the general public. She starts off the body of her article with, "I've been thinking about..." (par. 2) in order to let her readers know that she is going to be telling her perspective on the effect 9/11 has had on college students that were children during this event. Noonan stays attached to the students emotionally and keeps the focus on them, but she separates her writing and views from the students. Her strategy is to make her story more appealing and applicable to people of her age -- those that have been through a great tragedy before.

Further on, Noonan states that "9/11 was for America's kids exactly what Nov. 22, 1963, was for their parents and uncles and aunts" (par. 6). Noonan doesn't bother to explain the date, because she expects the majority of her audience to know what that date stands for. For me, as a "child of 9/11" I had to look up the date to realize November 22nd, 1963 was the day when JFK was assassinated. Noonan used JFK as an excellent connection to bring more understanding of the situation to those that have grown cold to constant tragedy.

Those that aren't in Noonan's majority of readers aren't too distracted by this phrase because they just assume the date has a greater meaning to other people. A majority of those in this type of mindset are people that have felt overwhelmed by the events of 9/11. In order to keep this article attached to these readers, the imagery and emotion used by Noonan provides a bridge between her view and their memories. As Noonan interviews college students, those that have memories of 9/11 frequently connect their thoughts to the experience of the interviewees – including me.

"Children of 9/11 Grow Up" does a wonderful job to connect its older audience to the feelings of current college students, while also keeping those “children” interested in the article. This college connection might have been intentional, or Noonan might have been primarily focusing on her own generation. Either way, they are both great results of effective writing.

"A Man of God" - to some

I would like to continue the analysis of President Monson's priesthood talk in May of 2009 but touch on his expression of "ethos."

Lars was accurate by expressing how President Monson demonstrates his eternal knowledge and supreme intelligence. Lars also points out that all of the words given by President Monson are applicable to the times, and President Monson emphasizes how important it is to study diligently, pray fervently, and live righteously especially in these latter days. In this way, President Monson accurately expresses kairos as a method of persuasion.

Another way President Monson in persuasive is not only through kairos but also, through his credibility. As Blake said in his post about a separate one of President Monson' addresses, the prophet of course is one of the most supreme human beings on all of the Earth - that is a given. But I think there aare some other methods that President Monson uses to lure in his audience.

Within the first minute of President Monson's address, he expresses deep love for the audience. Seeing as it is impossible for President Monson to personally know each and every member of his audience (which includes every member of the church - 13.5 million people) on a human level, it shows that he has been given a divine power. He has extensive credibility in the eyes of the members because of this fact. But to any ordinary person, he is expressing love. When listening to a speaker, it is hard to turn away from someone who speaks of their "sincere love, as well as... appreciation for your faith and your devotion" (par. 1). In everyone's mind, this man gains credibility for his unconditional love, no matter who you are - he recognizes the audience is important and he values your presence. Of course, President Monson isn't using this as a "method of persuasion" but it shows how he creates his own ethos. He doesn't have an extensive background of business success - he is a humble man. Because he establishes this sense of humility, people want to listen to this genuine man.

Other ways President Monson recognizes that his audience is important, is his comparison of the priesthood (held by the majority of male members of the church) to the power of God. By doing this, President Monson creates a feeling of worthiness that each member feels. Who does not want to listen to someone tell them how much they love and care about you?

Another way President Monson emphasizes ethos, is the way he provides guidance and advice to audience (which Lars spoke about). President Monson persuades us that his words can benefit our lives. Most people with a testimony can feel the Spirit to know he speaks the truth. In a way, the Spirit (a manifested feeling many members feel) is a way we can testify of President Monson's credibility. However, for audiences of other faiths may not agree with his advice. For example, members of other faiths may disagree that"living righteously" or morally is a way of staying out of harm's way. Overall, President Monson's credibility varies in strength between strong members of the church and non-members. For members of the church, they use the Spirit (or feeling they recieve when President Monson speaks) as a way to know that President Monson is the most credible human being on the Earth.

Finally, President Monson proves his knowledge of the scriptures, which contains difficult concepts, and interprets them to present day. He is able to make scripture messages applicable to our every day lives. He establishes his "ethos" by doing this because he recognizes things that we may sometimes skip over or not realize their significance. Overall, he demonstrates his divine intelligence, that makes the audience willing to listen. Other audiences may not recognize the scriptures as an important literary work and therefore would not find President Monson as credible as he is to the members of the church.

In a secular way, it can be interpreted that President Monson tries to persuade his audience to follow his teachings. For non-members, President Monson is less credible. They may not see the same power, love and intelligence that he emphasizes in his talks. In many ways, President Monson is trying to "persuade" the members, yet members are more likely to follow him solely because of his ethos, not his "power of persuasion." When it comes to religious guidance, members are not persuaded - they follow because they feel it is right based on the confirmations of the Spirit. It is controversial because the Spirit may be identified as another "persuasive device," but members testify of it being a credible source solely based on their faith.

Who could be more credible?

Continuing on President Monson's "Be Your Best Self," I'd like to set aside the fact that this is the Prophet speaking, since that is the most obvious sense of ethos we can observe in this article, and because there are more ways in which President Monson establishes credibility in his speech.

My favorite part about how President Monson speaks is the way he addresses his listeners. Specifically, how he uses "we" as often as he can instead of "you," which would distance himself from his listeners. For instance, in the end of paragraph 5, he says "As we do so, we provide the means by which our heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, can accomplish Their work here upon the earth. It is we who are their representatives here." I also like how he addresses us as his "brethren." Because in a spiritual sense, we really are. He realizes that, and speaks to us with that high of a regard.

Other reinforcements of his ethos come from the resources he uses: the use of quotes of previous Prophets of the latter days, and the use of Scriptures, which are the most credible sources there could be (as far as they are translated correctly, of course).

9/11 : A Reason for Unity and a Reason for Fear

As we pass the eighth year since 9/11, Peggy Noonan comments in the Wall Street Journal on its widespread emotional attachment to one particular age group. "The Children of 9/11 Grow Up" provides the commonly accepted opinion that 9/11 has an emotional connection that is taken very seriously by all Americans who were old enough to interpret the severity of the situation. When we all think back to the day of September 11th, there are common emotions felt by the general body of America - shock, remorse, pain and most importantly, fear. The author uses the emotional attachment to this particular historical event to convince us that there is a current undertone of fear among our communities in America that we are never completely safe.

In this way, the author utilizes emotional appeals to persuade us of this theory. She recognizes a serious event which is a very sensitive subject for many and persuades us that there is a constant fear present among the Amrican people. She uses interviews with young adults to enhance her argument. The age group Noonan focuses on the children who were old enough to understand the situation, but still children caught in their childhood. Noonan states, "Before they were carefree, after they were careful... the protected bubble of their childhood 'popped,'" (par. 5).

Noonan effectively applies the subject to a specific audience. Even her title begged curiosity - that is what drew me into open up the article. However, she also demonstrates that there is a broad appeal or an even larger audience because she connects this current day age group who experienced 9/11 to the generation of Pearl Harbor. She mentions that both audiences experienced the same set of emotions that should be acknowledged - they both have experienced "their first moment of historical consciousness" (par. 4). By tying both generations together, she suggests that these critical events in history significantly impact coming of age and maturing into adults. In other words, these historical events assist children in becoming American citizens and a part of a unifed body. "It completely destroyed our sense of invincibility... It showed the world could be a dangerous place for my generation that was never the case. My generation had no Soviet Union, no war against facism, we never had any threats" (par. 9).

It is clear that through Noonan's opinionated article, she uses the pathos or emotional appeal of 9/11 to connect to specific age groups and generations. She states that 9/11 is a way for that particular age group to achieve historical consciousness. She effectively persuades her readers that generations can be tied together through the historical tragedies they have experienced. Although there may be an undertone of fear, Noonan successfully creates a sense of unity because of her persuasion of tying generations together through their emotional experiences.

The Aura of President Monson

On September 15th, President Thomas S. Monson came to BYU to address the students in our weekly devotional. I've heard hundreds of talks from different leaders of the church, but his address was a very unique message, speaking on the prophets during President Monson's life, what they stood for, and what we can learn from them.

Before a word had even left his mouth, there was a high level of authority, or ethos, which came with the name "President Thomas S. Monson." His audience - members of the Church of Jesus Christ and possible investigators - know that Thomas S. Monson is the head of their church, and thus has a high level of credibility and believability. Quite frankly, he is the head of the organization that shapes the audience's lives. A lot of President Monson's message plays off of this fact: the audience believes what he is saying, they know he won't lead them astray, and they know what he stands for.

As if that wasn't enough, President Monson creates an even greater sense of ethos throughout his talk. He could have spoken on the lessons that he learned from all the prophets, but he chose to only speak on the prophets of his life. President Monson has an actual connection and personal experience with each and every one of the past prophets that he spoke on. By throwing in their favorite foods or funny stories that only someone that saw them on a constant basis would know, President Monson gives us reason to trust what he is saying as he connects past prophets to the current prophet – himself.

Social Networks, Communities, and the Government

I read an opinion editorial by Steve Duin, a newspaper columnist in Portland, Oregon. His story is titled "Ending our Splintering Isolation," and Duin touches on the current thought process surfacing saying that President Obama is turning the United States towards Socialism.

I've found two main points Duin focuses on when addressing this situation that creates a great sense of kairos: the view of the president, and the view of the community.

View of the President -- Right now, there are many citizen arguments made that Obama is trying to create a socialist country. The find socialist roots in his attempts to create a universal health care system, merging more companies/businesses into the government, etc. When President Obama gave his back-to-school speech, there were citizens saying that, "This is a President who believes in community above individuals and its [sic] clear in the talking points sent out to schools" (par. 2).

There are many on this conservative side, and Duin spends his time trying to reason with this viewpoint that turns "community into a shameful code name for socialism" (par. 13) His article works well to bring the opposing opinion into the argument, stating that what this country needs at this time is community support - we need to be cooperative and work with each other.

View of the Community -- Duin's article subtlety addresses another global situation in our communities: the lack of social networking. I read an article that summarized a book by Robert Putnam called "Bowling Alone," which addresses the issue that, due to a number of factors, people have stopped communicating in person, and social communities have fallen apart. People have gotten into the cyber-era of texting, emailing, and using other forms of digital communication to keep in touch with others.

This new form of "culture" is why Steve Duin is arguing for community unity in his article. Very few will deny that more and more people are shifting towards individualism because that is what they witness all around them every single day. Duin's strongest sense of kairos plays off this fact. Since people are drifting away into isolation, it is good that our president is finding ways to connect the public. Since people don't realize the importance of living, concrete communities in our country in the here and now, Duin shapes his article to bring people towards his view – America and its people need to support the communities, and not only is it good that President Obama is doing so, it is imperative that he does.

Time is of the Essence!

Is there ever a better message for the moment than a message from God? I realize this while reading a recent General Conference address from President Monson himself. It's called "Be Your Best Self," from the Priesthood Session of April 2009. Although this was initially intended for men with the priesthood, I believe that anyone, regardless of age, gender, or religious views, could benefit from reading these words of a Prophet of today.

The voice of our Prophet gives us three things to ponder and apply in our lives: study diligently, pray fervently, and live righteously. These principles have applied to every generation before, but they apply even more now. After all, many prophets have spoken of the Last Days being the most difficult and trying of times. Thus, we need all of the spiritual advantage that we can get. The Lord knows this and inspires his mouthpieces on this earth to remind us of these things.

The most interesting thing about General Conference talks is that there are so many stories of how a certain talk has changed someone's life in some way. The things they heard that day applied directly to their lives in some way or another. The reason this occurs is because God knows exactly what things will help the people of this world the most at this precise time. That's not to mention that it may not be only the speaker that the audience hears. In fact, it shouldn't. The Holy Ghost is also present in these circumstances, and teaches things beyond any speakers' knowledge to each individual.

Finally, President Monson reinforces his use of kairos when he proclaims, "To those within the sound of my voice who are struggling with challenges and difficulties large and small, prayer is the provider of spiritual strength it is the passport to peace" (par. 21)