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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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)