Jordan and I found this information today…

Antithesis: parallel structure that juxtaposes contrasting ideas

Here are some examples of that in his speech:

“support any friend, oppose any foe”

“united there is little we cannot do, divided there is little we can do”

“let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance in power, but a new world of law”

“if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich”

“the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace”

“bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations”

“ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”

President Kennedy’s speech exhausted me. Apparently he felt like every sentence had to be worded like an epic call to arms. Of course, there is skillful use of rhetoric in the speech and it was effective in motivating the audience, but i was not left in awe like so many people were.

One interesting thing i noticed while annotating the speech is how he tends to start paragraphs with the same word. Kennedy started with the word “to” five paragraphs in a row. “Let” started four paragraphs in a row. This pattern helped the flow of the speech and sounded cool, but it kind of annoyed me. Also, there were a lot of dashes in the script, sigifying interuptions in thought or other things.

The speech began by defining his audience- specific dignitaries as well as fellow citizens. By the end of the speech, however, he ended up talking a lot to people of the world and the russians. Humour was used well as kind of a brief release from the tension and drama when he said the people “riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.” I thought it was kind of pathetic when he said that most of the things in his speech weren’t going to actually happen during his administration. That was kind of like saying “OK, i just promised you world peace and riches and the whole nine yards, but it’s not actually gonna happen. Let’s wait and see if one of the next presidents will bring those things instead. Then in the next paragraph he said that it’s really up to Americans to bring the things he just promised, not JFK himself.

Despite so many of my criticisms, this was a good speech. It was inspirational, motivational, and emotional. JFK’s manner of delivering it was epic to the tenth degree, and so it apparently is a major moment in American political history.

My ad was a Harley Davidson page in Sports Illustrated. In the ad, Harley relates guarantees with “what freedom is built upon”. The ad appeals to pathos in it’s strongly patriotic tone: Red, White, and blue coloring along, an American flag in the background, and the first 3 words “We Ride FREE”. The audience is both male and female-”we’ve made men bolder, women stronger…”. There also is an appeal to logos because they open by saying that they’ve been around for over 100 years. The ethos of the ad is one of somebody who wants to help you discover a new you. They talk about unleashing souls. And they say “Screw It, Let’s Ride”. The motorcycle in the ad is angled like it is jumping off the page, it’s just begging the reader to ride it.

This article is unique in that you can’t quite tell it’s implicit meanings. It is composed completely of questions, questions that could be answered with a yes or a no, and questions that provoke thought. David Foster Wallace is trying to stimulate his audience to think about national security, and how it relates to sacrifice and the principles of democracy. It is clear that Wallace believes the people of America should be more involved in discussion and decisions with regard to security measures and laws.

The first article of the four is the news report from BBC. It’s purpose is simply to deliver the news and related information. The audience is anyone who gets their news from BBC, so it would be primarily british people. It is not very emotional, but that is the way it was intended to be because it’s a news report. It is successful in accomplishing it’s purpose.

The second article is the Queen’s speech a few days later. The purpose of the speech is to represent Diana’s family, give an update, comfort the audience and to pay tribute. The audience is anyone who has a television because i think it was probably televised around the world. It contains a lot of feeling and emotion, or pathos. Her speech was successful as well.

Earl Spencer’s eulogy for Diana was September 6th. His purpose was to pay respects and talk about memories and talk about Diana herself as a person. His audience is all the people watching the funeral. He is pretty successful, but i think there was more room for improvement.

The Wikipedia entry is an interesting one given the fact that it is by an anonymous writer. So we dont know the author. The audience is anyone who Googles something about Diana’s death, because that Wikipedia page is always the first link that comes up. The audience is worldwide too; wikipedia is in a bunch of languages. It’s purpose is to give the information in a straightforward, non biased manner. It is successful in delivering the message.

In Jody Heyman’s article “We Can Afford to Give Parents a Break”, she uses many patterns of development. These include compare and contrast, exemplification, and cause and effect. An example of her compare/contrast is the last two sentences of the second paragraph. She contrasts fathers’s treatment during the birth of their child in other countries with America. An example of exemplification is the statistic she used that parents in 37 countires get at least some paid leave to care for their sick kids. She used cause and effect when she relates economic success to better treatment of parents about to have or currently having kids.

The subject of my political cartoon is global warming and Al Gore. The speaker is Wayne Stayskal, a cartoonist for Tribune Media Services. This company sends out his work to many newspapers and websites all over. Judging by the cartoon’s anti global warming tone, i think it would be safe to say that Mr. Stayskal is politically conservative. The audience could be other conservatives or even liberals. It’s hard to determine the audience specifically because there’s no telling how many different newpapers or websites published this cartoon.

As far as Ethos goes, Mr. Stayskal is an experienced cartoonist for a mass distributor. We established before that he is most likely a conservative. The only problem with using this Ethos, though, is that it wouldn’t work for an audience with a different political leaning. So if his audience is a liberal person, his reputation as a conservative cartoonist isn’t a common ground with his reader. I think he mostly uses Logos in this cartoon. Stayskal put two people at a bus stop when it is snowing heavily. He’s trying to use logic to discredit the theory of global warming. He’s also saying that global warming activists only fight for their cause when it is convenient, such as during the warmer seasons.