In his “9/11 Address to the Nation” the 43rd President of the United States of America, George W. Bush assures that America will not be affected by the unruly and evil attacks carried out on September 11th, 2001. The President drafted this speech to resist the impending fear and questioning that American citizens around the country would soon be consumed by. Because 9/11 was the most impactful, yet devastating terrorist attack on the United States to date, Bush was not able to derive his thoughts from others’ ideas and speeches, thus he was forced to dig deep and extract the emotions and thoughts aroused by the “despicable acts.” Much like any great leader, President Bush wanted to stress the importance of instilling a sense of pride and resilience in the country and fellow countrymen and women to come together and remain as one. As the head of the “brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity” President George W. Bush declares that the United States of America will “remain strong” and appear unaffected as the country continues to build and rebound from the senseless acts of terrorism and hate. When being sworn into office, the elected presidential candidate must swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of his/her ability.
In these times it is still logical to believe that civil disobedience is the right course of action. Activists, wanting to make a change, have called for government reconsideration, health and safety issues, and discrimination on Native Americans. Thoreau believed that rebelling against the government was good as long as it slowed the “machine”. This can be seen in his essay when he states “...I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine,” (Thoreau, 946) which can be seen as controversial.
Roosevelt’s short opening sentence is also relatively vague, as he avoids mentioning specific details about the attack. This ambiguity leaves a lot of room for imagination, and many will automatically assume the worst case scenario, which strengthens the chaos that Roosevelt implies with his diction. Roosevelt continues to use this direct tone throughout the speech when he says, “It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago.” This portion is structured similarly to a data analysis, as he presents a fact and forms a conclusion by analyzing the data. The exception is, Roosevelt neglects to mention his analysis. He agains clips his sentences by leaving out specific information, and there is no time given to question him.
Humans are going to have accepted that we are hurting the environment and we cannot control what happens. Davis provides us with a very blunt and perhaps over the top explanation of the situation California is but without an explanation like this we will never take notice. Ecology of Fear by Mike Davis should be a wake up call for us in California that we do not live in a world. We should fear the environment not because does something disastrous, we should fear for what it can do and Mike Davis delivers on this point in Ecology of
“Most of us- almost all- must take in and give out language as we do breath, and we had better consider the seriousness of language pollution as second only to air pollution (Simon 334).” This is an interesting metaphor Simon writes to introduce one of his next paragraphs. A political, demographical, and even can be a social issue is air pollution. Many Americans or the audience of this essay are aware of this serious issue. This makes for this rhetorical device, a metaphor, just that more interesting. Simon explains how we must “give out” goof proper English and not pollute the world with slang and incorrect English, for it may destroy our beautiful language as a whole.
I agree, it is factual that we are facing severe environmental challenges. Even if the skeptics do not believe in the global warming, it is undeniable that the air and water pollution are caused by human activities. It is unhelpful to argue who is right, who gets more evidences or who eventually wins. If people just ignore the negative environmental impacts and do not implement any practical plans to deal with, our future generation will definitely suffer from
Appeal to history is used as an argument that use past cases as a guide to the future. It is used by the author in the article when he looks back at nonviolent protests in the past and how successful they can be over violence. One example being Gandhi’s marches in which he taught that “[t]he boycott…is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people to participate actively in a cause” (Chavez 61-64). Chavez also states that if victory were attained through violence, it “…would come at the expense of injury or perhaps death” and it will only be temporary as it will just “… [replace] one violent form of power with just another just as violent” (Chavez 67-68, 75-77). The author makes it clear that history has proven the nonviolent protests holds more leverage as the oppression it is against, whereas violence can only lead to injuries and deaths of many and only result in a similar or worse
There is a quote by President Barack Obama saying, “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” (“151 Inspiring Environmental Quotes”). He believes as many due that nonrenewable resources are harmful to all aspects of life. The energy we use now is harmful to our planet, to humans, and to animals. Scientists are taking steps to making the world a better place. They found sources that replenished naturally in a short amount of time and are less destructive in all aspects.
He says this is a “failed” effort by Romney and his goal throughout this post is to show taking America back is the last thing we should do by using the diversity of the government and Los Angeles, but most importantly by telling his amazing story of his trip back to his former community. We the people need to push forward and pursue the great idea of “Super-diversity”. It is the future of a new and better
Another common theme in is that the why can change people’s opinion on controversial topics. Throughout Fahrenheit 451, Montag’s stance on why books are important to their society shifts. Faber tells Montag, “Don 't ask for guarantees. And don 't look to be saved in any one thing, person, machine, or library. Do your own bit of saving, and if you drown, at least die knowing you were headed for shore.” (82).