Janae’s Blog

METAPHORS:

“The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.”

(Paragraph 24)

  “And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion”

(Paragraph 19)

PERSONIFICATION:

“And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.”

(Paragraph 9)

“With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.” (Paragraph 27)

ALLUSIONS:

“Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to “undo the heavy burdens … and to let the oppressed go free.” (Paragraph 18)

“We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.” (Paragraph 3)

*There are several references to God, the hand of God, etc. All could be considered as Biblical Allusions.

“but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, “rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation””  (Paragraph 22) *Biblical Allusion*

METONYMY:

“In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.” (Paragraph 21)

“For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life.” (Paragraph 2)

JUXTAPOSITION:

“Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change.”

OXYMORON:

“But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers.” (Paragraph 9)

John Kennedy’s Inaugural Address was designed to inspire the nation, to rekindle hope in the American people, and provide assurances for their safety. It was well written and accomplished its purpose, which was to assure America that their new, young, and Catholic President knew what he was doing and would do all he could to safeguard the American way of life.

While reading and studying the address, there were a few things I noticed that enhanced Kennedy’s speech. Kennedy’s word choice was very deliberate and distinctive. He used words that conveyed strong meaning and were direct, and there was no flowery syntax.

The issues addressed were ones that focused on the concerns of the American people, which proved to the American people that Kennedy was in touch with the concerns of the nation. He used the authority of his office to make promises and assurances, and made himself relatable to the general population. He used “we” statements to promote unity, and asks for the publics’ opinion. Overall, I was impressed with the speech and the depth of sincerity that his words seemed to carry. I thought it was a very well crafted piece that used strategies to emphasize Kennedy’s main points, and drew people in. His delivery, promises, and pleas appealed to the desire the American people have for a better and safer country.

The purpose of the ad is to get women to buy Rimmel nail polish. They focus on the fact that it dries in 60 seconds. The tag line “Play hard and fast” is to make the point that it is a nail polish that dries easily and lasts long, even if you “play hard”. The racing theme reiterates the main point that Rimmel nail polish lasts long and can endure rough play.

By placing a female in a racing helmet with her nails painted and the number 60 on her helmet on the center of the page it creates an intriguing visual-that a woman can “play hard and fast” while still maintaining painted nails. Also, the word cool on the right hand side of the ad, it almost translucent letter adds a chic air, that women can reamin pretty, calm, cool, and collected while living a fast paced lifestyle-all with non-chipped nails, of course! The target audience is obviously women who don’t have time to have their nails professionally done, or the time to sit and wait for their nails to dry. The persona is the women dressed as a racecar driver to emphasize the speed as to which the nail polish dries. The argument is that women can have pretty nails without the involvement of a large portion of time devoted to achieving them.

“Just Asking”, an article written by David Foster Wallace is a piece of writing that inquires what the American dream actually is and what the people of America are willing to do to obtain it, what sacrifices they are willing to make, and the alterations in lifestyle and acceptances of controversial beliefs they are willing to make.

Wallace begins by focusing on the death of the 2973 people killed as a result of September 11^th, and questions if America had viewed their deaths as “‘sacrifices on the alter of freedom’” instead of “victims” of “atrocities”, would America be saying that there is a certain expectation that people have to die in order to uphold the freedoms that we have? And that in order to continue the lives that we the American people lead “great sacrifices” need to be made? Wallace then goes on to state that 40,000 plus people in America are killed in domestic highway accidents, and yet we accept those deaths as common place,  tragic yes, but an occurrence that can’t be prevented, or that is worth the risk because “the mobility and autonomy of the care are evidently worth that high price”. Wallace uses these examples to show the general thinking of the American people, and the justifications they use to decide what constitutes what is important or acceptable in society today.  The deaths that occur as a result of an automobile accident are accepted and vastly less important that those that occur as a result of terrorism because acts of terrorism happen less frequently than an automobile accident, therefore people react more strongly to the attack than an accident. Wallace wonders what would happen if we accepted the fact that occasionally “some hundreds or thousands of us may die in ghastly terrorist attacks”. Would America be more willing to make the sacrifices of “personal safety and comfort?” Or would is even the notion of such a concept “monstrous”?     

Following the thread he has created of what is acceptable sacrifice of life, Wallace then segues into questioning how the times have changed that we are now unable to have “serious national conversation sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice”. He’s trying to make the point that Americans don’t like to hear the word sacrifice in-a word whose connotation means giving up something and Americans don’t like to give up what they have. Whether that something be material or abstract, willing sacrifice is not common in today’s society, and while positively viewed very few people are actually prepared to follow through with the idea. Wallace the directs readers into the thought that the lack of communication about sacrifice does not foster trust in public leaders because they make decisions that protect the general population of America from having to make sacrifices, leading to serious consequences, such as that they are blind to decisions that are made. Wallace asks if a series of political movements such as the Patriot act I and II, Executive Order 13233, and the Military Commissions Acts were worth it. If we were to have come to the conclusion that these were beneficial to us, and “helped make our persons and property” safer, could we honestly answer if they were worth it, because there was no involvement of the people in the decision. Wallace closes with these last questions “Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?” Wallace has drawn a full circle in his article that America has become so selfish and concerned with only what affect ourselves that we allow things to occur that are direct contrast as to what America was initially founded on. His point that America is selfish was proven by his reference to the lack of willingness to sacrifice, and that as such we know turn a blind eye to occurrences in government because we are more concerned with our own personal well fare, and couldn’t have a more flippant or ignorant attitude as to how we maintain that welfare. We get angry, upset, and are shocked when something happens to disrupt that, such as a terrorist attack.

Wallace uses questions to provoke thought and questions from the readers. His phrasing of “Why can’t we” or “Would we” and “What if we” force the reader to think and to draw conclusions in their own mind, to formulate their own opinions. As such, they can either agree with Wallace’s line of thinking, or come up with a counterargument. Even if they disagree with Wallace’s personal view, at least they are actively thinking about the subject which was Wallace’s purpose all along. To leave readers with an open-ended article that leaves room for discussion.

The article published by the British Broadcasting Company the morning after Princess Diana’s death is a straightforward informative article. Its purpose is to give the details of the tragic accident that claimed the Princesses’ life. The speaker is detached emotionally, yet uses quotes from family members and people close to the Princess to convey emotions. The audience is all who were interested in a report describing the circumstances shrouding the death of Princess Diana. The speaker knew that the audience would be a large one, as it was an incident that would attract the attention of millions of people, and that there would be lots of biased reports with finger-pointing being printed. The speaker decided to weave together the real story with subtle emotional emphasis so that readers could sympathize, but also understand the facts of the story. The article was very effective of providing facts and direct quotes without personal opinion.

Queen’s Elizabeth speech on the death of her daughter-in-law preyed on the emotions of all who heard it. She appealed to the soft and compassionate side of people to “cherish her [Princess Diana's] memory”. The Queens’ sole purpose was to let the world know how deeply she would be missed, the wonderful person she had been, and how the family was coping with such a devastating loss. Her emotionally charged speech was aimed at those who wanted to understand how deeply the Princess’s family was grieving, and the Queen’s personal feelings on the incident, as well as Diana herself. The Queen polled the resourcefulness she had as prominent public speaker to engage the audience personally in the feelings invoked by such an incomprehensible tragedy. Her purpose to glorify Princess Diana and share the personal aspect and the emotions that accompany a loss of such great magnitude were met in her heart-wrenching speech, and by utilizing such a sentimental tone, she not only accomplished her purpose, but gathered the sympathy of the audience as well.

 The eulogy for Princess Diana, given be her brother Earl Spencer, was another emotionally driven speech. He focused in on all of Diana’s wonderful and admirable traits, but mentioned her insecurities and issues as well. He was not objective, however, when speaking about her. He subtly laid blame on the media for their continual pursuit and criticism of his sister. His audience was all those preset at her funeral which was telecast worldwide. His purpose was to inform his audience of the “real” Diana-the one behind all the media frenzy and scrutiny. He drew the audience in with her remarkable traits, and compelled them to feel compassion and excuse her faults because of the situation she was in- being constantly under the microscope, and criticized for her innate nature to want to do good.   He wove the audience in with his purpose to explain Diana’s behavior by having them sympathize with the trials she endured; many of which were a result of circumstances beyond her control. By causing the audience to sympathize with Diana’s plight, and by arousing the subtle feelings of guilt from those responsible for her troubles, he created this masterpiece of a person-namely his sister, Diana.  The Earl was very successful in presenting what he wanted to present-that Diana was “the unique, the complex, the extraordinary, and irreplaceable Diana.”

The Wikipedia article is written by a speaker who states the facts, but subtly twists them with word choices that can be ambiguous, and chooses to write in a way that allows room for a negative connotation about the people involved to be created, and also spins a web of scandal around the accident. By stating that the Diana was with her “new lover” and that the only person to survive was the only person wearing a seatbelt, the speaker has harnessed the power of word choice to make people assume the worst of those involved in the accident. The speaker also focuses on the controversy and mystery that cloaked that accident which created speculation, and used quotes and references by people that voided statements previously given. The entire purpose of this article was to create curiosity and doubt about the ‘real’ information that had been published previously and unbiased, and replace it with deliberation over the actual occurrences leading up to and after the fact of the accident. But, the audience that this speaker was targeting was an internet audience, who read their facts from an online source that anyone can alter at their own choosing. So the audience was one who was more interested in the propaganda and scandal of the incident than the actual facts themselves. The speaker successfully met the demands of the audience by supplying a story full of facts twisted with the non-objective and prejudice notions of the speaker.

Jody Heyman’s essay “We Can Afford to Give Parents a Break” has a variety of developmental patterns used within it to enhance her argument. She uses exemplification, comparison and contrast, and cause and effect. Heyman mainly utilizes exemplification. Exemplification is taking one broad, vague idea and focusing in on it until it develops into a definite and indisputable one that is supported by correlating facts. By starting with the broad topic of honoring mothers on Mother’s Day, then narrowing it down to the importance of paid leave for parents, mothers in particular, she has taken a very general idea and connected it with a more specific one. She states that the governments’ lack of respect for motherhood is clearly shown by the non-existents maternal leave policy. She uses 168 countries to study the variety of maternity leave policies, then uses that statistical group to solidify the other points she makes throughout the rest of her essay. 164 countries of the 168 she researched have some form of a maternity leave policy; however the United States does not. Heyman also comes to the conclusion that omen have many demands that are placed upon them, but are limited in their resources to help relieve that burden. She factually states that there is a general consensus among the people of America that the women still do a majority of the household chores and provide a majority of the care for both their families, yet have inflexible work schedules and overall less paid leave time, so they must struggle to complete and fulfill all the duties and obligations they are faced with very little support from employers. She argues that some countries even offer paid leave to father after a child is born, so that he can assist the first few months. If that’s the case why can’t the United States at least offer better benefits to mothers? Every example she shares ties back to her original point that the United States should, and is capable of, establishing a policy that allows a parent to have paid leave from their job to care for children.

When quoting her statistical support of comparing the United States to other countries, Heyman is using comparison and contrast to validate her opinion. She notes that the United States, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark were all ranked as top competitors in The World Economic Forum, but that Finland, Sweden, and Denmark could hold those positions and still allow for paid parental leave. With every argument she makes, she gives examples from other countries, and then states how the Untied States responds to that same situation, for example, 37 countries of the initial 167 she researched give paid leave to parents to care for sick children. She lists the benefits-it’s possible and cost effective for the company because children heal and recover more quickly when parents are involved in their recuperation, and therefore children have a lesser likelihood of being sick longer, which would allow the parent to return to work sooner. Heyman also uses slight undertones of cause and effect here to emphasize her point.

During a time of great debate throughout the nation this cartoonist, or speaker, chose to simplify the main point of debate as he viewed it. Steve Kelley is a political cartoonist for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and graduated from Dartmouth College with honors. Most of his cartoons pertain only to the world of politics. He approaches his subjects with an overall humorous tone. This particular cartoon deals with the subject matter of the 2008 Presidential Election, and focuses in on the experience both candidates in either party possess. His audience is everyone who is interested in the election, but the cartoon first appeared in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, before being published to the internet. It was initially printed in September 2008 after the primary elections, and allowed the audience to view the candidates in a similar, yet simple way. The only trace of pathos in this cartoon is the humorous tone that the speaker uses to convey his message. He does not directly appeal to ethos, but background information informs the audience that he was a graduate from an Ivy League school. Kelley’s cartoon mainly appeals to logos by simply stating the facts of his subject matter. His cartoon depicts a situation that is the cause of great debate and contemplation for people; however he makes it so simple that it’s amusing. He also shows how similar both parties are-there’s the “seasoned old guy and the attractive novice” and vice versa for the other party. He also uses the angle of having the poll been asked of the typical average American people, which creates a better chance for the readers to relate to what he’s saying. By showing the puzzled expressions on the people who are being polled, he demonstrates the fact that many people have yet to realize that both parties have very similar candidates-the only difference is the position for which they are running for. Kelley has a very simple way of viewing things that give his audience pause, and cause them to really think about the issue.