"I Have A Dream"

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech was a turning point in history for the United States. As Megan states in her analysis of this speech Mr. King is certainly addressing those involved in the demonstration at Washington, but his primary target was white Americans. He appeals to other audiences throughout his delivery, but this was his primary audience. At the conclusion of his speech (or upon hearing it if they weren't present), I imagine that they knew it as well. Secondarily, he was attempting to motivate his fellow African-Americans to take up the cause and press it forward. These two general audiences can be broken into many sub-groups. The white audience consisted of white voters of all social climes, politicians and people in positions of influence, racists, civil rights activists, and most everyone in between. The African-American audience consisted of those who had seen more success in society, the despondent, the oppressed, those who had aggressed against their oppressors, the destitute, those present at the demonstration, and those who would surely hear of it.

He opens with some foreshadowing: "I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation." He is telling the ruling class in America at that time that he's about to open a rhetorical can of worms. And so he does.

Since his primary audience was the very people who held in their hands the power to reform current policy, Mr. King begins a long series of appeals to them. He begins with an allusion to Abraham Lincoln, both directly and indirectly. He uses "Five score years ago" and later "hallowed spot" to correlate with the Gettysburg Address. This appeal incorporates almost his entire audience. Abe Lincoln was championed by the African-Americans for obvious reasons, but he is and was also held in high regard by most white people who had affectionately referred to him as "Honest Abe". In 1963 the only people who might have felt that Abraham Lincoln did not deserve accolades would have been a small minority of whites who disagreed with the Emancipation Proclamation. Although racism was rampant in the 1960's, I doubt that the majority of whites then in the south really wanted slavery to have continued. Mr. King pulls out a few tricks to bring many of them on board as well. One of these was to use "manacles" and "chains" to remind the white population of the slavery they had inflicted upon his people.

I think one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s best tactics was the allegory of an unpaid check. During a period in America where men did business on their word and a handshake, his allusion to the promise of freedom for slaves being defaulted upon probably made an impact on the conscience of many people. Putting it in terms of an unpaid debt made many people re-think their position on what should have been a clear premise in the 1860's.

Mr. King also does a good job of appealing to the patriots of the American ideal of freedom in these sections:

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

And,

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".

No self-respecting patriot in the USA would disparage these clauses from the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. King's passage of rhetoric also solidifies the guilt in those who believed in a moral obligation to pay one's debts.

Martin Luther King, Jr. definitely threw into his speech a lot of biblical reference. This afforded him some leverage with those of all races who valued the Bible. "[T]he dark and desolate valley of segregation...", "the valley of despair", and "...every valley shall be exalted" are probably all akin to Psalms 23:4. He quotes portions of Isaiah 40: 4-5 in concluding his "I have a dream" repetitions with, "I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together." He refers to Daniel 2:45 when he says, "With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope". The statement, "Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children" is in reference to Matthew 7:24-27.

In a couple of places in his speech, Mr. King indicates a pretty specific audience. He is direct and critical of Alabama and Mississippi especially. He mentions some other states but this sentence, "I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice" vilifies Mississippi, with "even" being the operative word. He rebukes the "vicious racists" of Alabama and directly reproves their governor "with... his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification."

I think Mr. King even attempted to appeal to those entangled in the arising drug culture. "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" was most likely said to spark their interest. He makes no criticism of taking drugs, per se, only a criticism of taking the "drug of gradualism" in regards to his cause.

Mr. King directly addresses the African-American component of his audience further along in his speech. He redirects the speech at one point saying, "But there is something that I must say to my people". He then proceeds to appeal to both those who are feeling more hostile and those who are more passive. This is evident when he describes the movement among African-Americans this way: "[a] marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community..." Calling militancy "marvelous" lets those who are feeling hostile know that he does not condemn their feelings, yet he proceeds to promote peace. This is an effectively ambivalent statement.

King does not fail to acknowledge the struggles of his people and to put himself on par with them. At one point, he speaks to those who have been in jail. He describes their cells as "narrow", demonstrating his own experiences with being unjustly imprisoned. He continued to elucidate his understanding of his people's persecutions, calling their plight "redemptive".

Possibly, King's greatest appeal to the African-American portion of his audience was his use of phrases from the negro spiritual "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" Prior to this powerful conclusion he makes a final appeal that attempts to unify his entire audience, "that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands..."

This is just a thought, but I find it interesting that there is no reference in the "I have a dream" speech to people of Native American, Latino, or Asian heritage. These ethnic groups also had a pretty rough time in America throughout its history but there is no appeal to them as an audience. Nor is their any appeal to various religions other than those based on the Bible- no appeals to Buddhism, Islam or other prominent non-Judeao-Christian beliefs. Although Mr. King's rhetoric achieved widespread fame and recognition, I think it would have helped his cause even more to verbally reference these various groups rather than just leaving it to implication.

Stirring Them Up to Remembrance: Pathos in Alma's Preaching

Previously I had written about the way Alma presented himself to the people of Zarahemla and the people of Gideon. The people of Gideon in Alma 5 were not in as good of a spiritual condition as those of Zarahemla, so Alma focused on stirring them up to repentance with strong emotional pleas.

The Gideonites are a people who many of them knew about the Church previously, but had since departed from it and lost the blessings that came along, so they probably were familiar with church history up to that point. Alma exhorts them to remember the many ways the Lord has delivered both them and their ancestors, temporally and spiritually. He asks them to ponder upon what they might think at the day of judgment and if they think they could possibly be saved with all their sins. In v. 18:

"Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?”

By being direct in speaking of the ultimate consequences of wickedness, Alma paints a vivid picture of what the people can expect if they continue in wickedness and also attempts to dispel any illusions they may have had about escaping the consequences of sin.

The people may already know that Alma can speak of the guilt and remorse caused by sin from personal experience, as mentioned in Mosiah 27:29 after he had repented of trying to destroy the church and in Alma 36:21 when he was speaking to his son Helaman. Furthermore, it makes sense for Alma to ask this question because we can tell that he has already answered these questions to himself and pondered how he would feel being judged if all his sins were still on his head in Mosiah 27:31:

"Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye."

Due to the nature of Alma's conversion, it seems that he is particularly skilled at describing what we would feel being judged of God. Much of the beginning of Alma's preaching to the Gideonites is in the form of questions, which encourages them to imagine for themselves what consequences are in store, and their imagination could be more emotionally overpowering than what Alma could convey directly. V. 22 is a prime example of this:

"And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?"

In addition to reminding them of the misery caused by sin, in v. 22 Alma invokes the emotions of spiritual rejoicing that they have likely felt before.

"If ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?"

Alma might be drawing on his own experiences here. Since he was the son of the man in charge of the Church previously, he may have felt this way about the gospel at some point before he set about trying to "destroy the church of God" and lost that feeling. But instead of relating his own emotions, Alma thought it would be more effective if he urged the people to remember how they had felt.

As a side note, one of my favorite passages in Alma is Alma 12:14:

"For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence. "

This was not in Alma's address to the Gideonites, but it is another example of Alma speaking about how we might feel at the day of judgment.

Lehi's Discourse on Everything (latest draft)

For my essay analyzing the use of logic, I will look at how Lehi's explanation of the plan of happiness has strong logical backing and how he follows principles of logical and ethical arguing that invite us to trust him as found in 2 Nephi 2.

Lehi makes sure that all of his assumptions are stated clearly. In v. 5, he gives his assumptions that "men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto them." Building upon these assumptions, because we have this knowledge and are liable for our actions, we would be cut off if we sinned even once were it not for the Atonement. "Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah." There is no attempt at deception by trying to hide assumptions.

When Lehi says in v. 10 that "the punishment that is affixed [to the law] is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement," he backs up his assertion with an explanation suitable for his son Jacob or others well versed in gospel doctrine. Because we believe a principle that Lehi talks about in v. 25, that "men are free according to the flesh," and we may choose between eternal life or eternal death, it follows that we must have at least two things to choose. Lehi's explanation in v. 11 that "all things must needs be a compound in one" makes sense in this context.

Building on this concept, Lehi makes a logical step in v. 22-23 to why the fall of Adam was necessary to the plan of happiness:

“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.”

If we followed Lehi when he said that "all things must needs be a compound in one," then we can conjecture that the existence of misery is necessary for joy and the existence of sin is necessary for good. This ties in neatly with our belief that God cannot sin, so our temptations to do evil and be miserable must come from another source, so the existence of Satan is necessary for us to grow.

In v. 25, Lehi makes an assumption that was particularly appealing to me: Men are that they might have joy." This fits in to one of my personal philosophies. I might as well assume that the purpose of life is for us to be happy. If I assumed otherwise, I might not be as happy.

To show that he has considered other possibilities as to the grand scheme of things and the purpose of our lives, Lehi offers a rebuttal to an opposing viewpoint that there is no grand scheme or purpose in v. 13. Perhaps Lehi does not bring up any more counterarguments because he thinks those whom he is addressing are not itching to refute his argument. Lehi concludes this rebuttal by saying, "I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things," and he concludes his argument by saying, "I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls."

I am comfortable trusting someone who asks me to make logical decisions and provides reasoning to back them up. So Lehi has my attention in v. 28-29 when he urges me to “choose eternal life...and not choose eternal death.”

Pride is Ugly as Sin (latest draft)

President Ezra Taft Benson's talk Beware of Pride is replete with examples of Benson's command of our language and his knowledge of how best to address a sensitive subject like pride. Brandon also wrote a post analyzing the talk here. I will focus on the way Benson's use of language helps his persuasive power, but I won't shy away from his use of other rhetorical devices.

From the start, President Benson shows respect to his audience even though he will later call us to repentance when he says, "May I commend you faithful Saints who are striving to flood the earth and your lives with the Book of Mormon." When he segues into speaking on pride, he tries not to offend anyone by saying he wants to help us avoid the destruction in the Book of Mormon instead of accusing us of being prideful.

He also establishes his choice to speak on this subject as divinely ordained when he says "This message has been weighing heavily on my soul for some time. I know the Lord wants this message delivered now." Brandon wrote about how this associates him with ancient prophets as well. President Benson wanted to target all Church members, so anyone who wants to avoid destruction or believes in heeding prophets today or in the past is exhorted to pay attention.

To make sure we know what President Benson and the scriptures are referring to, he gives a definition of pride. "The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us." We can see how enmity is a part of pride in the rest of the examples he gives, and how if we are humble instead of trying to compete, we can "conquer... enmity toward our brothers and sisters, esteem... them as ourselves, and lift... them as high or higher than we are."

When Benson gave examples of what proud people do, one struck me as particularly powerful. Because "the proud depend upon the world to tell them whether they have value or not, ... pride is ugly. It says, "If you succeed, I am a failure."" He is justified in calling pride ugly, with the implications that both pride and its results should be repulsive to us. The attitude of "If you succeed, I am a failure" entails a lack of cooperation that has a terrible on us spiritually by damning us, or stopping our progression. In addition, temporally pride will lead to a lower average standard of living because of the lack of cooperation and the destructive competition that can happen if someone focuses on making others fail rather than seeking their own or others' success.

President Benson uses repetition to describe facets of pride, the benefits of humility, and how we can become humble. (I wouldn't dare to call it anaphora, because then it would look like I was just copying Brandon.) This is effective because it adds a rhythmic quality to his statements and helps them to be memorable. He starts off his descriptions of of what repenting of pride could do for us with the phrase "Think of" and all of his exhortations to be humble with "We can choose to be humble by..." By phrasing it this way, he avoids ordering us to do anything and follows the Lord's injunction relating to persuasion: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." (D&C 121:41)

He also says, “Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice,” and “Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion.” This added emphasis on these particular phrases might indicate that President Benson wants all of us to realize we could be guilty of pride. It is called a universal sin and a stumbling block to Zion, which includes all those striving to do good. I imagine his goal in giving this talk was to warn us of the dangers of pride, but phrase it in such a way that we would not be offended and prideful because of his words.

Alma's Preaching: An Ethos Analysis (latest draft)

In Alma 7, Alma addresses the inhabitants of Gideon. In the first six verses, he effectively portrays himself as one who is worth listening to because of his many accomplishments and as someone who has stayed humble even in the position of chief judge over the land. In verse two, he establishes his credibility in a way that is particularly effective for his audience of a more righteous group of people.

"And even I could not have come now at this time were it not that the judgment-seat hath been given to another, to reign in my stead; and the Lord in much mercy hath granted that I should come unto you. "

There was probably renown and authority associated with being the chief judge, and Alma could have noted that aspect about himself, but instead he says he was "wholly confined to the judgment-seat." By saying 'wholly confined,' he implies that he would have rather been doing something else, like speaking to the people, and that judgment-seat is not a particularly desirable position. Alma knew that preaching the gospel was more important than being chief judge, and guessed that the people of Gideon agreed with him, so he presented himself as one who knew the gospel rather than as the former chief judge.

In addition, Alma says several times how much he trusts that the people of Gideon are doing what is right. He identifies with the people by mentioning several things that they all would consider important if they are following Christ, especially in verses three and six. For example, “I trust...that ye do worship the true and the living God, and that ye look forward for the remission of your sins.” Placing his trust in his audience that they are doing what is right makes it easier to listen to his counsel

Alma also mentions “the awful dilemma that our brethren were in at Zarahemla” in Alma 5, referring to how the people of Zarahemla had strayed from the right paths. He speaks to this audience and establishes his credibility differently. In Alma 5:3, he says, “I, Alma, having been consecrated by my father, Alma, to be a high priest over the church of God, he having power and authority from God to do these things...” He stresses his responsibility as high priest to preach the gospel when he could have mentioned his previous authority as chief judge.

The people of Zarahemla might have known already that Alma was famous for being the chief judge, and maybe even for rebelling against the church in his youth, but I would guess that Alma wanted them to realize that his priesthood and the things of God are of more eternal value than fame. Besides, since Alma intended to preach the gospel, his position as the high priest is a better qualification than his experience as chief judge.

Even though Alma probably could have caught the attention of either of his audiences by referencing his worldly fame, he understood its transient and fleeting value, and focused instead on the gospel.

Health Care and its Current Relevance (latest draft)

I will be analyzing the timing of an opinion piece on Barack Obama's health care plans called "Tort reform is a cure for our ailing health care system." It's from The Gazette, a newspaper in Iowa, which I selected out fondness for it while I lived there.

Before I talk about how relevant the arguments are in terms of Kairos, let me give you a brief summary of his article. The author, Duane Schmidt, raises the point that a significant proportion of medical tests are given because doctors are worried about being sued for malpractice. Schmidt claims that health care and health care reform would be less expensive if doctors didn't have to worry about needless tests or their money being siphoned off by litigious patients. He offers the solution of not letting juries who know nothing of medicine being set over malpractice cases.

The issue of health care reform is still in the stages of debate where people are looking for solutions, so this is a good time to give suggestions. Schmidt also takes advantage of the current decreasing approval of Obama by accusing him of pandering to trial lawyers and of putting someone who was formerly a lobbyist for trial lawyers, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, to preside over the investigation. Now is a most opportune time to make such appeals to pathos that invite us to draw derogatory conclusions about Obama without considering whether the facts back them up.

Schmidt's use of the excitement and contention regarding health reform to distract us from his lack of strong logical support for some of his points is most evident in the third and fourth paragraphs.

Addressing Obama, his article says, "Earlier in the summer, you said that you would “never go there” in terms of enacting tort reform. I presume this has nothing to do with the enormous financial support you receive from trial lawyers." Schmidt does not give us any references as to when Obama said the short phrase "never go there," attempting to discourage us from looking at the context of that remark for ourselves. Also he invites us to assume that Obama receiving financial support from trial lawyers means he must be corrupt, without giving any details about the nature of said financial support.

Schmidt goes on to say that Obama has in fact appointed Sebelius to look into tort reform, noting that, "Interestingly, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was for eight years employed as a lobbyist by the Kansas trial lawyers. Is this the ultimate example of the fox guarding the henhouse?" He sets us up to make a generalization about trial lawyers, that all of them must be untrustworthy and focused on swindling doctors out of their money, neglecting to consider that Sebelius' experience lobbying for trial lawyers might make her more qualified for that appointment. Comparing Sebelius to a fox guarding a henhouse is a false analogy that oversimplifies the issue.

Then Schmidt says, "We can only guess her findings, and would not wager when, or if, she ever concludes anything," using the plural pronoun to help us think we agree with him. I have been using plural pronouns as well, but I feel I am justified in it, because I am trying to encourage you to consider all the facets of the issue, while Schmidt seemed to want us to only consider his side. His proposal for tort reform is sensible and well-timed, but the way he implies that Obama, Sebelius, and the government have dastardly intentions is rude as well as most likely counter factual.

Claims Don't Cut It: Weak Logical Support In Lovelock's Article

(But alliteration allures. And, uh, assonance as well.)

Blake wrote the first post analyzing this article on global warming and nuclear power, and others in his group followed with their own analyses, but I feel like Lovelock's logical fallacies have not been properly addressed

Although I agree with Lovelock's proposal that we should not be fearful about nuclear power, I am incredulous with the premises he puts behind it. Lovelock makes several claims about the effects of global warming and the feasibility of nuclear power, but he only cites a source for one of them when he says "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100." In all other instances, he offers no logical support for his sometimes emotionally charged statements. I will quote and discount a few claims of his.

"The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea will have risen seven metres, enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world, including London, Venice, Calcutta, New York and Tokyo." Lovelock allows emotion into his factual claim by saying that these well-known cities could be submerged, but he does not refer us to any data about the rate of Greenland's ice melting or a probable timeframe for its "complete dissolution." So we do not know how long it would take for the sea to rise seven meters, or even if it ever would do so*.

"Climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity, and for the world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners." This statement begs the question 'Which climatologists said this and how do we know?' Also, how does the rainforest act as an air conditioner? Lovelock does not back up this claim, but instead focuses on the emotions of the loss of the Amazon rainforest.

"According to Swiss meteorologists, the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20,000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one." We do not know where Lovelock procured these statistics, because he does not identify these Swiss meteorologists or link to their data. Furthermore, the statistics themselves are uninformative. How many people usually die from heat waves, and what's the difference from 20,000? Are winters getting warmer, and does this cause fewer cold-related deaths? What data are they using to find those odds? If the heat wave is a deviation from the norm, how much of a problem does this say climate change is?

"Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver; imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars." There are several assumptions in this quote that Lovelock makes no attempt to justify. Does the Earth "regulate its climate and chemistry?" Does agriculture put a damper on this process? Do we need extra farmland to fuel our cars? The links in his chain of logic could easily be contested. Also, to be scientifically precise and not increase the skepticism of his readers who know a bit about chemistry, Lovelock should have said that cars and humans produce, not consume, carbon dioxide.

I could cite more of Lovelock's failures to site his sources, but there are other problems I want to mention. His word choice colors his essay apocalyptically, as Blake might say, when he speaks of how "global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism," the "grim forecast" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the "extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars," and my favorite, how "the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases." Yet, looking at his failure to source his claims, he does not provide adequate support for these doom-sayings.

Lovelock creates a false analogy when he says, "It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens, little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act." We have only his word that global warming is this serious and urgent, and the statistic he cited that the "global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100" implies that we are very unable to be exact about global weather conditions.

When Lovelock says that "Most of us are aware of some degree of warming; winters are warmer and spring comes earlier," and how a "grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat," it's a non sequitur. We cannot assume that the temperature variation of individual years proves or disproves his claims--a much wider data sample is necessary. Statistically speaking, anecdotal evidence can only be used to disprove 100% trends. NASA documents how annual temperature summations are taken here, and a graph of their data here suggests that the global mean temperature has risen by a little more than .5 degrees Celsius in the past century, but there is still a large year-to-year variance.

Lovelock casts opponents to nuclear energy as straw people when he says, "Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified..." The only concern that he addresses is worries about but I fear that he uses false premises, namely, that "nearly one third of us will die of cancer" and that oxygen is a carcinogen. And even if both of these premises were true, he still wouldn't have proven anything about how dangerous or safe nuclear power plants are.

Ultimately, I regret spending so much time analyzing this article when there was not much useful to be gained from reading it, but I was drawn in by the sheer audacity and volume of Lovelock's unsourced claims.

*Given a surface area of 3.61*10^14 meters squared of water on the Earth, it would take around 3.61*10^14 cubic meters or 87,000 cubic miles of water to raise the sea level by even one meter, assuming that the sea level rises uniformly everywhere. It would probably require more water, because the surface area of the water would increase as the sea level rose.

ra#5

JFK's speech in which he designated himself a jelly doughnut has many examples of his ethos (not all of them positive). First of all President Kennedy was in fact the President of the United States, at that point in time a respected posistion often regarded as leader of the free world, and thus already had a significant ethos. The citizens of west Berlin were surrounded by communist Germany and appreciated their freedom, and thus would listen to the "leader of the free world". Not only was Kennedy's position respected Kennedy also established himself as a "learned" man by using the latin ,"civis Roman sum" (I am a citizen of rome) this gave him the appearance of being smart. Then Kennedy made a huge mistake, "Ich bin ein Berliner" or in english, "I am a jelly doughnut", who respects a person who calls themself a jelly doughnut. Although Kennedy was trying to establish himself as a metaphorical resident of Berlin what he really did was degrade his ethos, and thus his argument. I disagree with Joel's assertion that Kennedy's use of German increased his ethos, on the contrary Kennedy's failure to use proper german grammar undoubtedly made him appear negligent and superficial to those who spoke the german language, he could not even take the time to learn to say one simple german sentence. Of course President Kennedy was still the president of the U.S. and his ethos as president undoubtedly outweighed his failed attempt at german.

Lehi's Discourse on Everything

For my essay analyzing the use of logic, I will look at Lehi's explanation of the plan of happiness and how he describes the creation, the fall, the atonement, and the resurrection as inextricably linked as found in 2 Nephi 2.

Lehi makes sure that all of his assumptions are stated clearly. In v. 5, he gives his assumptions that "men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto them." He goes on to say that because of this law, or the commandments we have received from God, on our own we are doomed to be miserable.

By itself this argument is depressing, but Lehi's purpose in arguing is not to prove a point that has depressing implications. He immediately explains that we can be redeemed from our violations of the law by the sacrifice of the Messiah. The goal of this sacrifice was to"answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit," so we need not be cut off from God's presence by the law.

Lehi further explains that the law is a good thing in v. 10 when he explains that the end or purpose of the law is so that we can be happy, because "the punishment that is affixed [to the law] is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement." Here he has made the assertion that because there is a punishment for breaking the law, there must be happiness to be gained by being innocent before the law through the atonement. Lehi does not try to trick us and not back up this assertion, but instead explains in v. 11 why "all things must needs be a compound in one."

In verses 13 and 14, Lehi does my favorite thing with logical statements, which is to focus his argument on something uplifting. He says that if there is no law and no sin, ultimately there could be no God and no creation. But his purpose is not to tell us sad things, but as he says, "I speak unto you these for your profit and learning," and "I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls."

and that the points he is trying to back up logically are relevant to us
I haven't mentioned anywhere how in v. 8 Lehi links up missionary work and the resurrection to this, or in v. 23 how he applies the ideas of all things being a compound in one
~This essay needs to be more focused on how Lehi demonstrates good logical reasoning without anything like deception.
/IS A DRAFT

Ra#4

Martin Luther King jr's "I have a Dream" speech is a clear demonstration of audience analysis, as well as language tools. Not only does it adress his literal audience (those gathered to hear him speak), it also adresses those who oppose him, and those who are neutrel. King knows that his audience, the ones actually there, want rights for colored people, so that's what he talks about (duh), but more interesting is how he talks about it. King knew that those opposed to his view would likely read or hear his speech and try to criticize it and disprove it, so he used very credible sources to make his point, sources that his enemies were familiar with. One of these sources was the Bible (amos 5:24, which deals with justice, and Isaiah 40:4-5, which says that "the glory of the lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together"), King knew most of his enemies were from the south, and were very familiar with the Bible, thus he quoted a source his audience was familiar with. In addition King knew that his audience would probably not criticize the Bible, and thus established for himself a solid source for his argument. King's quotation of the Bible also appealed to thise christioans who were undecided on issues of race. In addition to the Bible King also used sources from the American past. One of these sources is the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which states "all men are created equal". King's opponents were all americans, who all certainly valued their independence. King's use of the Declaration of Independence shows that he correctly interpreted his audience and presented information that they accepted to prove his point, no american, against, for or, undecided on equal rights would argue with the Declaration of Independence. King also used the song "My country Tis of thee" in which one line reads "From every mountain side let freedom ring" to show his point. King also made great use of language tools. King's primary language tool was the allusion, to the past works mentioned above, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, etc. These allusions while supporting his point also made him appear smart and well read, which he was. In addition to the obvious allusions to past events King also used a more subtle one, he began the main part of his speech "Five score years ago", comparing his speech to the Gettysburg address. By alluding albeit subtly to the Gettysburg Address king makes his speech an anthem for freedom similar to the Gettysburg Address in that the issue of race rights was at its height, much like the Civil War was at its height at Gettysburg. King clearly understood that not only his friends but his enemies, and everyone in between would see or hear his speech, and thus used documents from American History, and World history to prove his point showing his ability to analyze an audience and use language tools, particularly allusions.

Just A Game-Revised

This is a revision of my previous post of Just A Game.

I read Just A Game in the August 2009 Ensign. This article details some of the rising issues brought about by the online gaming genre. This article was written by Charles D. Knutson of Brigham Young University Computer Science Department, and Kyle K. Oswald from LDS Family Services. I think a natural ethos occurs when a reader sees the qualifications of these two men listed at the beginning of the article. When referring to video game addiction and its effects on family, most people will generally think that someone from the BYU computer science department is an authority. The same is true of someone who works in LDS family services in regards to the effects of any addiction on the family.

The authors make another good ethos appeal to their audience at the end of paragraph five: "We hope that the explanations, suggestions, and prophetic counsel included in this article may be helpful to individuals and families as they seek the guidance of the Spirit in finding balance in their lives." In this sentence, most readers will gain a sense of the authors' concern for them personally. They use the word "hope" to give positive connotation and convey their concerns in a way that seems parental and caring. Next they identify their rhetoric as "explanations (and) suggestions" versus criticism, and finally throw in "prophetic counsel" as a fail-safe to any who would challenge their position. Prophetic counsel is in the upper echelon of ethos appeals to an LDS audience.

There are several stories given in the article about individuals dropping out of school, neglecting responsibilities, and straining family relationships as a result of playing video games. The authors mention David A. Bednar recently addressing the world of virtual reality in a CES fireside. He addressed the subject as having "both immediate and eternal implications". This does two things for the audience in this article. From a kairos standpoint, it shows that the LDS leadership is currently concerned with this problem. Secondly, referring to a specific "prophetic counsel" builds even more ethos for the authors. They do this again in the next paragraph, including a significant segment from M. Russell Ballard's article in the July 2004 Ensign, "Be Strong in the Lord".

Why the sudden interest in virtual reality in the LDS church leadership? Primarily, subscriptions to these online games is higher today than ever before. The brethren have obviously seen a need to address this issue, as we are now in a day where a person can access the internet from just about anywhere. People all over the world and even in the LDS church are being lured into spending much of their time in virtual reality. The timing of these messages from the leadership of the Church is most likely an attempt to stem the assault on its members before the problem gets out of hand.

I noticed that this article was released in the August issue. I suspect that this was done to coincide with students returning to school this fall. Reminding students to prioritize their studies and curricular activities, and to be aware of the ever-present distractions offered by the internet is an attempt at preventative maintenance. Hopefully, it will be successful to at least a small degree.

I think that the article accomplishes its goal for the most part, but I would have changed the timing of the headings within the online version. This was done effectively in the magazine by placing the "Am I Addicted" heading as an insert prior to the solution "Where Can I Find Spiritual Help and Hope". I think that those who read the online version would have been better served this way. Obviously, if a person reading this article is not addicted, then they don't really need to find spiritual help and hope regarding said addiction. With this adjustment, Elder Ballard's statements are better positioned to persuade those in denial to re-analyze their gaming habit with a more eternal perspective.

Per some comments from my esteemed mentor James Goldberg, I feel that I should comment on the effects that the visual presentation of this article in the print version had on its ethos. Sadly, after establishing good credibility for themselves through the aforementioned means, the authors' ethos is denigrated by the poor quality of the accompanying graphics. The artwork is unattractive, cartoon-ish, and altogether unappealing. The computer monitor taking the form of a ravenous monster devouring the family is a bit extreme. In fact, the premise of the artwork has the computer as the source of treachery instead of the individual, and this somewhat undermines the spirit of the article.

Pride is Ugly as Sin

I read Brandon's post on President Ezra Taft Benson's talk Beware of Pride, and I thought that it deserved further analysis. I will focus on the way Benson's use of language helps his persuasive power, but I won't shy away from his use of other rhetorical devices.

From the start, President Benson shows that he's not trying to accuse and belittle us by saying "May I commend you faithful Saints who are striving to flood the earth and your lives with the Book of Mormon." When he segues into speaking on pride, instead of explicitly calling us prideful, he notes how he wants to help us avoid the destruction in the Book of Mormon, which might help us be willing to listen to him.

He also establishes his choice to speak on this subject as divinely ordained when he says "This message has been weighing heavily on my soul for some time. I know the Lord wants this message delivered now." Brandon wrote of how this associates him with ancient prophets as well. President Benson wanted to target all Church members, so anyone who wants to avoid destruction or believes in heeding prophets today or in the past is exhorted to pay attention.

To make sure we know what President Benson and the scriptures are referring to, he gives a definition of pride. "The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us." We can see how enmity is a part of pride in the rest of the examples he gives, and how if we are humble instead of trying to compete, we can "conquer... enmity toward our brothers and sisters, esteem... them as ourselves, and lift... them as high or higher than we are."

When Benson gave examples of what proud people do, one struck me as particularly powerful. Because "the proud depend upon the world to tell them whether they have value or not, ... pride is ugly. It says, "If you succeed, I am a failure."" He is justified in calling pride ugly, with the implications that both pride and its results should be repulsive to us. The attitude of "If you succeed, I am a failure" entails a lack of cooperation that has a terrible on us spiritually by damning us, or stopping our progression. In addition, as merely a temporal thing, pride will lead to a lower average standard of living because of the lack of cooperation and the destructive competition that can happen if someone focuses on making others fail rather than seeking their own or others' success.

President Benson uses repetition to describe facets of pride, the benefits of humility, and how we can become humble. (I wouldn't dare to call it anaphora, because then it would look like I was just copying Brandon.) This is effective because it adds a rhythmic quality to his statements. He starts off his descriptions of of what repenting of pride could do for us with the phrase "Think of" and all of his exhortations to be humble with "We can choose to be humble by..." By phrasing it this way, he avoids ordering us to do anything and follows the Lord's injunction relating to persuasion: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." (D&C 121:41)

Goldberg's Syllabus: A Logos Analysis

Wal-Martians- Logical Fallacies

Although I think Barbara Ehrenreich did a good job of using pathos and logos in her Wal-Martians writing, I feel there are quite a few fallacies in her logic. Granted, she uses a lot of hyperbole, her logical fallacies should not escape scrutiny. The truth is that Walmart isn't responsible for any city having turns in its economic stability. The fault simply cannot be put upon them. Surely there may have been some small businesses who have closed their doors as a result of Walmart's presence, but where were the loyal customers to the Mom-and-Pop's? Did Wal-Martians zap their brains and their abilities to function independently? Were they robbed of their choices to shop at other stores? Of course not. No business can be expected to curtail their own growth to save those businesses affected by their success. The fault lies with the community and those businesses who could not adapt and improvise to address the competition.

Ms. Ehrenreich accuses Walmart of "abysmally low wages". There is no real evidence in her article detailing what these wages are, although I'm not sure it matters. Walmart pays its employees above minimum wage, to my knowledge, with some benefits offered to the majority. How much should stacking shopping carts and greeting people pay? Are these jobs really underpaid? Perhaps the fact that they even pay people to do these jobs instead of just eliminating "Greeter" from the payroll is a gesture of kindness by Walmart. Additionally, Ms. Ehrenreich's argument that Walmart's wages are horrible removes all responsibility from the employees being "victimized". These people have the agency to seek employment elsewhere, go to school, start their own business, etc. To paint them as helpless in their Walmart predicament is inane.

I think Ms. Ehrenreich steps a little over the line when she finally accuses Walmart of being criminal. She says Walmart is being faced with charges of sex-discrimination and non-payment of wages, as well as accusations of locking employees in at night without help in medical emergencies. These are charges and accusations. The validity of them is not apparent. She just skips right to "Confronted with its crimes", and assumes that Walmart is 100% guilty. In the USA it is intended that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Even if some of the charges and accusations are justified, Walmart cannot be held absolutely accountable for the individual actions of its employees, only for its company policies. Individuals need to be held accountable for their actions. If an employee is asked to do something unethical, that employee is liable for his/her choice, as is the person who asked him/her to act unethically.

Alma's Preaching: An Ethos Analysis

In Alma 7, Alma addresses the inhabitants of Gideon. In the first six verses, he effectively portrays himself as one who is worth listening to because of his many accomplishments and as someone who has stayed humble even in the position of chief judge over the land. In verse two, he establishes his credibility in a way that is particularly effective for his audience of a more righteous group of people.

"And even I could not have come now at this time were it not that the judgment-seat hath been given to another, to reign in my stead; and the Lord in much mercy hath granted that I should come unto you. "

There was probably renown and authority associated with being the chief judge, and Alma could have noted that aspect about himself, but instead he says he was "wholly confined to the judgment-seat." By saying 'wholly confined,' he implies that he would have rather been doing something else, like speaking to the people, and that judgment-seat is not a particularly desirable position. Alma knew that preaching the gospel was more important than being chief judge, and guessed that the people of Gideon agreed with him, so he presented himself as one who knew the gospel rather than as the former chief judge.

In addition, Alma says several times how much he trusts that the people of Gideon are doing what is right. He identifies with the people by mentioning several things that they all would consider important if they are following Christ, especially in verses three and six. For example, “I trust...that ye do worship the true and the living God, and that ye look forward for the remission of your sins.”

Alma also mentions “the awful dilemma that our brethren were in at Zarahemla,” referring to how the people of Zarahemla had strayed from the right paths. He addresses this audience and establishes his credibility somewhat differently. In Alma 5:3, he says, “I, Alma, having been consecrated by my father, Alma, to be a high priest over the church of God, he having power and authority from God to do these things...” He stresses his responsibility as high priest without even mentioning his previous authority as chief judge, which is similar to the way he later addressed the people of Gideon. Even if the people of Zarahemla would have responded positively to being addressed by a former chief judge, perhaps Alma chose not to mention it because he planned to speak of things relating to the church and not the judgment-seat.

Alma is much less gentle than with the Gideonites, spending less time introducing himself and jumping right into exhorting the people to remember the many ways the Lord has delivered both them and their ancestors, temporally and spiritually. He asks them to ponder upon what they might think at the day of judgment.

“I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?

"Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—and that he will save you?

"Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?”

(Alma 5:16-18)

I was interested to observe that even with the people of Zarahemla whom Alma spoke more harshly to, he still didn't try to use the worldly fame of the judgment-seat to get people to trust him.

Ra #3 federalist #2 final

The Federalist #2 by John Jay is a very persuasive essay, promoting a strong central government as opposed to a confederacy. Its point is very clear and the argument is a good example of Logos, although pathos, and kairos play a large role as well. The core of Jay's argument is that the United States are strong while united, but weak when divided. He continues that the way to stay united is to have a strong central government, not divided state governments. Jay harkens to the Revolutionary War in which the U.S. won under the leadership of the Continental Congress, a strong central government, thus central government is equated with victory. This part of Jay's core argument apeals especially to those who remember the Revolutionary War, which was almost everyone that could vote, because they all remember how the states won by working together (this is an example of Jay's Kairos). Jay states that if the U.S. does not have a strong central government it will not be able to protect itself from foreign meddling (not necessarily in an open war), as it did in the Revolutionary War, which was undesired by many because it was associated closely with the war. Jay also states, in closing, that if the United States don't unite they can say, "Farewell! A Long Farewell to All my Greatness," implying that they are great while united, but not while divided, this appeals to the readers pathos.

Not only does Jay have a sound core argument he also counters the argument of his opponents, who said that a strong central government will make decisions only to benefit its members, and will ignore the rights of its citizens. Jay does this by providing an example from the past which all voters will remember. He uses the example of the continental congress, which led the U.S. during the revolutionary war, he states that it did nothing that did not benifit all of the patriots, and did not act only for he good of its members. While this is probably slightly stretching the truth, it doesn't matter because the U.S. won the Revolutionary War under the leadership of the Continental Congress, and thus the Continental Congress is associated with victory, which those voting consider good. He also states that the citizens of the U.S. in all the states have common rights, and that the government will not be able to restrict these common rights without destoying itself.

Jay was clearly a master of rhetoric, using it to promote his arguments, and thus create the constitutional United States.

Barbara Ehrenreich's Wal-Martians

In July of 2004, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote an opinion editorial on Walmart for The Baltimore Sun. The article can be found here, among other places, including the BYU compilation, Perspectives on Globalization (ISBN: 978-0-74093-121-5).

The author uses an interesting mixture of hyperbole and personification with the intent to vilify Walmart. She does a pretty good job of creating a hostile image, portraying the company as an army of Martians invading Earth. "It's torn cities apart from Inglewood, Calif., to Chicago, and engulfed the entire state of Vermont." She personifies Walmart as an alien who came to Earth quietly, unnoticed, disguised as a human, then grew into the War of the Worlds tripod it is today. She writes, "No one knows exactly when the pod landed on our planet, but it seemed normal enough during its early years of gentle expansion."

This method is effective in appealing to the audience's emotions. As I read Ms. Ehrenreich's article, I began to develop a negative opinion of Walmart. Her science-fiction allusion began to draw me into her designs, and I was left thinking that all those Walmart greeters who were slightly odd in appearance might actually have been aliens. This is an effective use of pathos. Ms. Ehrenreich's creative approach to this topic draws her audience into a "1950s sci-fi flick", with Walmart starring in the villain's role.

After creating a grisly scene for earthlings, and instilling dread, Ms. Ehrenreich changes gears and provides some logos for her readers. She cites the rate of growth of the company, (again using overstatement, "bigger than General Motors! Richer than Switzerland!") as being the real cause for concern. She provides evidence of this growth with numbers of store openings per week, real estate purchases, and employee figures. This is a good transition from pathos to logos, working on her audience's emotions then providing supportive facts.

Ms. Ehrenreich continues her assault on the Wal-Martians after establishing a front line, and goes for the monster's throat, accusing them of criminal behavior. She mentions class-action lawsuits against Walmart involving sex discrimination and failure to pay overtime. Surely there are other suits against the giant, but these two topics she mentions specifically to yank her audience's emotions once again. Who among us likes sex discrimination or not getting paid? She adds insult to injury, essentially calling Walmart a Third World sweatshop.

The conclusion of Ms. Ehrenreich's exposure of Walmart as an invading host of Martians invites the same Martians to assimilate with Earth. "Earth to Wal-Mars, or wherever you come from: Live with us or go back to the mothership." This is an interesting way for the author to present herself. In this statement Ms. Ehrenreich attempts to dissuade the audience of her hostility towards Walmart, and projects the position of wanting to find commonality. It's a good attempt at ethos, but as for the "aliens", the damage has been done. From now on, date night with my wife will take me to new frontiers. No longer can I carelessly browse the aisles of Walmart without paranoia setting in. Henceforth, we will conduct our business somewhere safe, like Sam's Club.

Ra #2

On Rethinking Health Care in California, an article written by Jean Fraser, demonstrates all aspects of the rhetorical triangle. Logos is used in the presentation of facts and numbers. Fraser states, "he (her husband) is paying $3,400 each month for insurance just for his three employees. (he gets his own health insurance through me.) This costs him $41,000 per year, about what he would pay to hire another person." A system where it costs as much to hire an employee as it does to pay insurance for three is obviously not logical, especially in these economicly troubling times where many are searching for jobs. Jean Fraser is a HMO provider, and that gives here an Ethos, she works in healthcare, it is logical to assume that she knows what she is talking about. However she also uses this supposed ethos to establish pathos, which the paper is mostly based on, when she says that she should know what to say when her husband asks for advice. This gives one the idea that the field of healthcare is so confused that no one knows what's going on, most people are confused about healthcare and can identify with the author's feeling of confusion. Pathos is also established in the story about Mr. Fraser's employee who has a wife with multiple sclerosis and may lose his health care coverage because it costs Mr. Fraser so much. Everyone feels sorry for someone who is sick and of course wants to help them, and of course the article demonstrates that healthcare is the solution. Although this article is short it incorporates a bit of ethos, pathos, and logos and is therefore quite an affective argument. (even though it isn't written like a typical argument, which I think only adds to the ethos, your much more likely too take what someone says at face value if you think they're not trying to sell you on something)

Hypoxemia

There is an article in the September 2009 issue of USHPA's Hang Gliding & Paragliding magazine titled "Stinkin' High". This article is written by Boyd Hehn with the ultimate intent of persuading free flight pilots to avoid hypoxemia. The audience for this article is actually pretty small. There are less than twenty thousand hang and paraglider pilots in the USA. Of these twenty thousand, probably less than half are pilots who fly in conditions that would expose them to hypoxemia. So, Dr. Hehn's article is ideally written to an audience of a few thousand pilots. These pilots come from a large variety of backgrounds and experiences. The challenge of convincing people to avoid hypoxemia might seem simple enough, but this audience has many factors to consider when solving this risk: equipment weight, cost, cumbersomeness and maintenance. Another solution is to avoid high altitudes. It can be a tough sell since the use of an expensive oxygen system may only be needed on rare occasions, and good altitude gains are sporadic enough that no pilot wants to stop climbing because of a potential lack of oxygen.

In his introduction to "Stinkin' High", Dr. Hehn uses "we" extensively to appeal to this audience and build some ethos. He is telling his audience that he relates to them on this topic. As we see at the end of the article, Dr. Hehn has experience in flying, and thus his appropriate use of "we" to align himself with the audience. This pacifies his readers by letting them know he understands their culture, instead of preaching to them as a physician. He happens to be a Pulmonologist, a fact that is kept obscured until the end of the article. His credit for writing the article lists him only as "Boyd Hehn". His credibilty is made evident as he outlines the science behind hypoxemia, but the actual notation of him being a physician is saved until the end, when his audience's opinion has already been fully affected. He is writing primarily as a fellow pilot, and secondarily as a physician.

Another interesting approach that the author uses is his reference to altitude in the first paragraph. He says "...pilots aspire to altitude.", and "(Altitude) offers 'safety' for aerobatics". These are statements that especially appeal to pilots. It is counter-intuitive for most people to hear that altitude offers safety, but pilots know this from experience. The author even puts "safety" in quotes to emphasize the esoteric nature of this statement. Altitude offers more time to react to collapses or problems that occur in flight. By demonstrating his knowledge of this inside information, he gains the audience's confidence.

Dr. Hehn's next strategy to win his audience's interest and consent, is to include a narrative by Matt Beechinor. Matt is something of an icon in the world of free flight. His story is intended to show the audience that no one is immune to the risks of hypoxemia, and that its onset can be subtle, even unnoticed. Matt's story has a different language to it than Dr. Hehn's portion of the article. It appeals more to the common attitude of guarded recklessness found among many pilots who fly cross-country. Whereas Dr. Hehn writes in a technical verse (maybe even too technical at times, given his audience), Matt writes in a casual style more familiar to most pilots. This narrative likely develops a good bit of commonality with the bulk of the audience, but Dr. Hehn was worried that he had yet to win their hearts as he said, "Instead of dismissing Matt's story as an isolated incident, we suggest reading Will Gadd's post." Will Gadd is another icon in free flight (and other extreme sports). Dr. Hehn then offers a good perspective of the nature of his audience when he states, "We suspect that more pilots have experienced the effects of severe hypoxemia than would care to admit." This is, of course, implying that his audience is comprised of pilots who see their susceptibility to hypoxemia, while flying high, as a weakness. They might prefer to ignore the issue in lieu of admitting that they can't handle their altitude.

Dr. Hehn moves to a good bit of logos next, providing ample scientific data and argument to convince even the most resistant pilot that his brain will fail without adequate oxygen. More important than the actual evidence however, is the transition that he makes from pilot to scientist. This furthers his credibility with his audience. He has appealed to them on a personal level as a pilot, inserted a narrative on the topic from one of their idols, and finally brings the science behind the argument to the table. It is an effective persuasion.

Advice from Diana Wynne Jones

For my web-log post on audience analysis, I picked an article by a favorite author. Diana Wynne Jones wrote the piece Hints about Writing a Story for a children's website, so it is meant for younger readers who have found they enjoy writing.

To sound friendly to children, Jones adopts a casual, conversational tone, not worrying too much about being grammatically correct. This is evident in the passages "You will come across bits that make you sort of squiggle inside and say ‘Oh, I suppose that will do.’ That is a sure sign that it won’t do," and "You could ask someone to do a drawing and they would draw it just as you had seen it. Promise." I was impressed at how easy it was to understand what she meant by "squiggle," and the impact of her advice was not diminished by her lack of formality. In addition, her choice to speak in second person is good for this audience, because her readers will probably readily agree with her, whereas second person narration can be irksome if you disagree with what what the author says about 'you.'

Jones makes some suggestions and gives some hard, fast rules about writing. For example, she says, "The IMPORTANT THING is that you should ENJOY making up your story," and "You must read your story AS IF YOU HAD NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE." She explains how you should carry out these instructions, but she knows that she doesn't need much further logical support behind them because readers of her essay are probably already familiar with her writing and authority to give advice on it.

But she might sound condescending to children if she were to give all of her advice imperatively. To avoid this, she only uses that style when she considers her observation to be something that doesn't vary from person to person, such as when she says "Everyone is different and that means that everyone is going to need to write a story in a different way. You have to discover how you need to do it," or "To start, you have to have an idea. I can’t help you there."

Jones manages to target children as her audience without sounding too bossy when she says some things are non-negotiable through her understanding that she is already held in high esteem as a writer.
(Too much commentary, not enough analyzing.)

Analysis # 1 Kairos

Dan Simpson's article "Get out of Afghanistan, too" displays the rhetorical tool of Kairis, in that it addresses the right people at the right time in the right place. It argues, obviously, for leaving Afghanistan. The article was published Febuary 4th, shortly after president Obama was elected, in part due to his promise to leave Iraq. Mr. Simpson shows his sense of Kairos by writing and publishing his article just after the president promising to end the war in Iraq was elected, in the minds of many americans the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are connected. By promoting the end of the war in Afghanistan, when the end of the war in Iraq is near Mr. Simpson capitalizes on this perception. The Article is also addressed to the right audience, that is an America weary after 6 years in Iraq and 7 in Afghanistan. Also by publishing the article when the end of the war in Iraq is at least within sight, Mr. Simpson also addresses an audience that is hopeful for an end to American entanglement in major overseas engagements. Mr. Simpson also addresses the right people. It seems to me that he is addressing (in addition to the rest of america) those who wanted an end to the war in Iraq, which they now have. By addressing those who supported American withdrawal from Iraq Mr. Simpson targets those most likely to be convinced that getting out of Afghanistan is good. These people have already ended one conflict, so it is logical to conclude that they will support the end of another. The article was also published in the right place, America, which is the leader of the NATO forces in Afghanistan. By publishing the article in America Mr. Simpson targets the root of the conflict. Mr. Simpson clearly demonstrates an understanding of Kairos by publishing his article at the right time, just after Obama's inaugeration, to the right people, those who supported withdrawal from Iraq (as well as the rest of war weary America), and in the right place, America, the leader of the NATO/UN forces in Afghanistan.

Health Care Reform and its Current Relevance

I will be analyzing the timing of an opinion piece on Barack Obama's health care plans called "Tort reform is a cure for our ailing health care system." It's from The Gazette, a newspaper in Iowa, which I selected out fondness for it while I lived there.

Before I talk about how relevant the arguments are in terms of Kairos, let me give you a brief summary of his article. The author, Duane Schmidt, raises the point that a significant proportion of medical tests are given because doctors are worried about being sued for malpractice. Schmidt claims that health care and health care reform would be less expensive if doctors didn't have to worry about needless tests or their money being siphoned off by litigious patients. He offers the solution of not letting juries who know nothing of medicine being set over malpractice cases.

The issue of health care reform is still in the stages of debate where people are looking for solutions, so this is a good time to give suggestions. Schmidt also takes advantage of the current decreasing approval of Obama by accusing him of pandering to trial lawyers and of putting someone who was formerly a lobbyist for trial lawyers, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, to preside over the investigation. Now is a most opportune time to make such appeals to pathos that invite us to draw derogatory conclusions about Obama without considering whether the facts back them up.

Schmidt's use of the excitement and contention regarding health reform to distract us from his lack of strong logical support for some of his points is most evident in the third and fourth paragraphs, which I will examine more closely.

Addressing Obama, his article says, "Earlier in the summer, you said that you would “never go there” in terms of enacting tort reform. I presume this has nothing to do with the enormous financial support you receive from trial lawyers." Schmidt does not give us any references as to when Obama said the short phrase "never go there," attempting to discourage us from looking at the context of that remark for ourselves. Also he invites us to assume that Obama receiving financial support from trial lawyers means he must be corrupt, without giving any details about the nature of said financial support.

Schmidt goes on to say that Obama has in fact appointed Sebelius to look into tort reform, noting that, "Interestingly, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was for eight years employed as a lobbyist by the Kansas trial lawyers. Is this the ultimate example of the fox guarding the henhouse?" He sets us up to make a generalization about trial lawyers, that all of them must be untrustworthy and focused on swindling doctors out of their money, neglecting to consider that Sebelius' experience lobbying for trial lawyers might make her more qualified for looking into the matter. And he asks the question of is this like the fox guarding the henhouse, but after consideration I have to say, "No. It's more complicated than that."

Then Schmidt says, "We can only guess her findings, and would not wager when, or if, she ever concludes anything," using the plural pronoun to help us thnk we agree with him. I have been using plural pronouns as well, but I feel I am justified in it, because I am trying to encourage you to consider all the facets of the issue, while Schmidt seemed to want us to only consider his side.

As a commentary on my own analysis, I could not refrain from betraying my thoughts about the validity of the arguments I was analyzing, but I did it in addition to looking at how the author uses Kairos.

Just A Game?

I read Just A Game in the August 2009 Ensign. This article was written by Charles D. Knutson of Brigham Young University Computer Science Department, and Kyle K. Oswald from LDS Family Services. The article details many of the rising issues brought about by the online gaming genre. In this case, online gaming refers to the playing of massively multi-player games over the internet, not those of the gambling/casino type.

There are several stories given in the article about individuals dropping out of school, neglecting responsibilities, and straining family relationships as a result of playing video games. David A. Bednar recently addressed the world of virtual reality in a CES fireside. He addresses the subject as having "both immediate and eternal implications".

Why the sudden interest in virtual reality in the LDS church leadership? I have a few ideas. Primarily, subscriptions to these online games is higher today than ever before (Wiki). The brethren have obviously seen a need to address this issue, as we are now in a day where a person can access the internet from just about anywhere. People all over the world and even in the LDS church are being lured into spending much of their time in virtual reality. The timing of these messages from the leadership of the Church is most likely an attempt to stem the assault on its members before the problem gets out of hand.

I also noticed that the article I read was released in the August issue. I'm certain that this was done to coincide with students returning to school this fall. This message was timed to remind students to prioritize their studies and curricular activities, and to be aware of the ever-present distractions offered by the internet. This is an attempt at preventative maintenance. Hopefully, it will be successful to at least a small degree.