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.

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.

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 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.