“There is only one bad word: taxes.” - Ron Swanson

The Rhetorical Style of a Soccer Referee

What has peaked my interest most about rhetoric is the finite detail of style behind its uses. Hermogenes wrote about the virtues of rhetorics style. There are seven constructions of rhetorical style: Clarity, grandeur, beauty, rapidity, character, and force. Each of these directly contribute to how a persons use of rhetoric is received. I didn’t want to break apart the style of the presidential candidates in the past election since we have covered that as best we could. Instead I wanted to go into the everyday uses of rhetoric, specifically how I have used it as a soccer referee. I never realized how much rhetoric is being used as a referee officiates a game. The referees knowledge of the game is only part of how he is judged as a good officiator. It is how confident and controlling he is of the game as well. What every referee is told when taking the classes necessary to become one is; when giving a call on the field, you must do it with great authority. 

When I took the class back in 2004 there was a section on the test that gave you a hypothetical situation that has occurred on the field and you had to write out in great detail how you would respond to the situation. It wasn’t until now that I learned about how crucial your answers to those hypothetical scenarios dictated whether or not you passed the exam. The USSF members that gave the exam were looking for those who have a natural ability to officiate and those who knew the laws very well. They explain to us that the greatest authority of a referee is not the whistle he blows or the cards he gives, it is his confidence and knowledge of the laws that earn him respect on the field of play.

Now when I first heard this I thought it was a bit silly but from a rhetorical view this makes perfect sense. Though I still reserve the right to call it silly because being a part of that system allowed me to see the USSF officials come off as these high horse type of men and I find any high horse attitude in a game for amateurs hilarious. I mean come on, relax. 

According to the FIFA Laws of the Game manual, it states that “each match is controlled by a referee who was full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been appointed.” (Yes there is a bit of sexism in the manual) Like a political presentation the referee will utilize the laws/rhetoric, in connection with the match he is officiating. The style of how authority is perceived is very crucial in both instances as well. 

I passed my exam and went through a few training sessions before being given my first match to officiate. I was a fourteen year old officiating a U-18, under eighteen, mens match on my first day as a referee. I was nervous and was trying to remember what I had been taught. When the whistle blew for the match to begin my damn heart was pounding so fast I could barely concentrate. Since it was a U-18 match the halves were split into 45 minutes. After the first half there is a fifteen minute break. I walked over to the area the refs and I were setup and I was greeted by a few angry parents yelling at me about the mistakes I had made. I didn’t know how to answer back or explain myself which lead the parents to question my ability to officiate and it had me thinking about my own ability. The center referee who I was sidelining for took me to the side and explained to me that I need to relax and not worry, I’m going to make mistakes, the best thing to do was to make the calls with authority. If the call was wrong or I wasn’t sure to just make the call firmly and appear as if I knew the call was right. 

It didn’t really occur to me until this semester how making calls as a referee was a form of rhetoric. Specifically the style of the authority in rhetoric. The powers and duties of the referee state that the referee “enforces the Laws of the Game, controls the match in cooperation with the assistant referee, provides the appropriate authorities with a match report.” In order to properly carry out the duties as a referee I had to create a specific style of how I would officiate the games and how I felt I would adjust that style from game to game. 

The clarity of my rhetoric came from knowing the rules in and out and when directing them, I spoke firm, confident, and short. I learned over the years that I will always have parents who judge my calls based off how I explain them to the coach. When I was about sixteen I had a coach come up to me at half time and ask me why I didn’t call an offside on the opposing player who scored a goal. I had made this call many times before and never had to explain it. The Laws of the Game state “a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent” so if the offensive player is ahead of the last defender and ball before the ball is passed to the attacking player than the offside is called and the ball goes to the other team. What occurred on the field was a tactic many players learn to utilize as they get older.

The attacking player waits for their teammate to pass the ball ahead of them as the player then runs to what is normally an offside position but because the ball was ahead of the player before moving into that position it is not an offside. The difficulty in judging this tactic is due to how closely the referee is watching the game. From the sideline vantage point it seems like an offside, I have seen it my self. Parents and coaches will get mad if they feel the call was wrong. When the coach approached me he was yelling at me about the call that I missed and how it could lead to his team losing, even though they were already down by four goals. In this instance my style of rhetoric had to come thru properly. I spoke to him with a clear voice, I addressed him as sir, and spoke with terms of soccer knowledge. The use and appearance of grandeur and beauty came with the precise knowledge of how I explained what happened on the field and how according to The Laws of the Game the opposing player was not in an offside position. 

The coach listened and his tone changed and his volume went down. He apologized for the misunderstanding and shook my hand, then went back to his players. My style changed a bit on the fly, normally I use a bit more force in my language and tone but as I listened to the coach talk to me I thought it would benefit me more if I toned it down. ausing the addition of sincerity in my language helped me because he wasn’t the typical hot head coach and only wanted an explanation. Within the style I used Ciceros Roman Levels of Style to address this particular confrontation, Mesos (Middle Style), to please the coach with listening to him and explaining to him my decision and Ischnos (Low or Plain Style), to teach him an aspect of The Laws of the Game he didn’t know before. 

As I got older I significantly improved how I interacted with coaches and players of various ages. I utilized Cisceros three areas that he felt contributed to rhetorical ability; Natural Ability or Talent ("natura" "ingenium"), Theory or Art ("doctrina" "ars"), and Practice ("exercitatio" "imitatio.") Cicero debates which of these three contribute more to rhetorical ability as well but I have found that all three are crucial in various ways. The natural ability and talent are the very two things that USSF officials look for when hiring a new referee. So both come in handy and directly influence a referees authority. I was comfortable in making authoritative decisions and dissecting a situation that could occur on the field. The talent I believe came from having actually playing soccer. I knew where to run when refereeing a match and how to anticipate a players actions and direction. 

Theory and art apply to how a referee uses his discretion in judging the game as it happens. I would have a difficult finding a balance with this area. How a referee feels a foul and misconduct should be penalized has guidelines specified in The Laws of the Game (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290868.html) but is ultimately at the referees discretion. Like any other soccer referee I have had difficulty in judging the severity of a foul. There are always the obvious hard fouls like a player striking another player, but the ones that are hard to catch call for quick and decisive judgement. For example if a player is pulling the jersey of the opposing player or if a handball is intentional. Within the use of theory the Virtues of Style make a significant presence and of course are seen in all rhetoric. In the case of judging the severity of a foul I have to look at the evidence on the field very quickly and relay that back to the player I am disciplining. When explaining the call to the player and his coaches the use of propriety is key, I can only use the specific definitions of the foul the player has committed such as “unsporting behavior” or “dissent by word or action” and it is followed by purity and clarity. 

Purity in the sense that the quality of my explanation to the player about his foul is spoken from a literary authority that comes from me having the correct understanding of The Laws of the Game. The use of clarity comes from my proper use of terms and logic behind how I explain the reason for the players sanction to the player. The language I use towards the player must be intelligible so my authority is respected and taken as final. Without these applications of Virtues of Style then my authority would be challenged and I would lose control of the game and my knowledge of the game would be challenged by the players, coaches, and parents. 

My practice of my rhetorical usage of The Laws of the Game are very crucial as Cicero has pointed out. I practice by reading The Laws of the Game as much as possible so I may better understand the laws and memorize the the terms and explanations so when I have to explain myself to a coach and/or player I am prepared to rebuttal. The practice directly influences what Hermogenes wrote about style in rhetoric. Specifically my grandeur, rapidity, force, and character. As I continued to referee more games all these applications of rhetoric got much better. I was refereeing a regional championship game for a U-18 mens match that would lead to the winning team going on to compete in the State Championships. I was instructed by my advisor to keep the game tight, allow the team to play but keep them in line, and keep my explanations shorter. 

This was a game I felt more than adequately prepared for. I feel after years of practice my virtues of style that Hermogenes wrote about were well worked on. I was eighteen when this game was assigned to me and as I look back I see how well I utilized my style of rhetoric. The level of style I believe I used for this game was Adros (High Style or Grand Style) to move the game in the manner I felt was safe and under control. I had to address the coaches and their players as I do every game, but this time I took the opportunity to emphasize how I was expecting this game to be played. My clarity and sincerity worked well. I told the players I was not going to tolerate any hard physical play and that I would be calling the game tight. 

As the game progressed my use of grandeur and rapidity came into play very well. I made calls quickly and didn’t let any fouls go until I felt I had a good and clean game going. I would quickly blow the whistle to direct the call. A few players would come up and ask what was the call and I would look at the and firmly give them two to five word answers like “you were pulling his jersey,” “hand ball,” “it ricochet off you.” I did my best to not seem as if I didn’t want to explain the call to them, I made sure to keep the sense of not trying to slow down the game. This game in particular I didn’t address parents who would ask anything when there was stoppage time, I would only address the coach and a few times had to warn both coaches that they needed to control their sidelines or they would be asked to leave. That is where my force came in, I tried to project a no-nonsense attitude about the game hoping teams would see I want the game to go as smoothly as possible. 

My utilization of  Adros (High Style) moved the game exactly how I wanted it. It extended to the coaches and parents as well. They all got the feeling that I was calling a fair and clean game for both the sake of the game and their players. This was evident when the coaches came up to me at half time to ask me about some calls but they did it in a calm manner, they only asked for explanations, they didn’t challenge them. I made sure to again use Correctness and Propriety when addressing the parents. The parents especially were concerned for their kids and expect I relay that same concern of the players to them. Speaking with the right grammar and syntax with references to The Laws of the Game to fit their subject matter put the parents at ease. A parent asked why I wasn’t blowing the whistle when the players would shove each other and it lead to them stumbling to the floor. I explained that if the players weren’t being “careless, reckless, or using excessive force” than the physical contact is allowed. They seemed a bit satisfied which made me utilize Sincerity and I told the parents “I will be watching the physical contact close to make sure it isn’t too rough” and they seemed a bit more at ease. At the end of the game I had players come up to thank me and shake my hand as well as the coaches. The proper and precise use of rhetorical style aided me in refereeing a great game and the teams both appreciated my efforts. 

Looking at the rhetorical uses a soccer referee utilizes to officiate a game has been a great time. I feel the soccer referee is a great user of rhetorical knowledge. Unlike referees in other sports soccer remains the truest to rhetoric. Every other sport uses replay playback to change calls and has coaches who can directly challenge referees, thus taking away from their authority. The referees in other sports are completely at the mercy of what is being recorded. Soccer is very raw as a sport and in officiating. Like presidential debates or rhetoric of old it can’t be challenged right then and there. Authority and style rule for that moment in time to convince the present audience that whats is being said and assured is true and final. A soccer referee truly is a master of rhetoric in the field of officiating a game and managing its audience confidently through the use of precise rhetorical style that needs to be tailored at any moments notice. 

Poll Roundup

The Preezy of the United Steezy, a.k.a The Barackness Monster, a.k.a The P.O.T.U.S

Obama has done a good job, in my opinion, with appealing to the younger voters. He uses a great deal of pathos and a clear logos when addressing the younger demographic. Romney doesn’t make a strong attempt to reach out to the young voters as Obama. Obamas use of social media is a great way for him to reach that  young demographic, to seem like an everyday man, a man that is cool, does and uses the same things younger voters do. Of course his aim is both political and whole hearted, at least thats how it comes off. 

He has made great use of certain appearances he makes to address the younger demographic. Appearing on late night talk shows who’s main viewers are college students. Appearing at basketball games and talking with the players to seem like the casual sports fan, an everyday man that voters can relate to. Obama seems to emulate friendliness and funny, the president who can take his job seriously and also poke fun at himself. I’ve looked and picked apart a certain areas of Obamas attempt to relate and understand the younger voters. 

Obama uses a great deal of ethos with his appearance on Jimmy Fallons talk show. By  just coming on the show and participate in a goofy skit utilizes litotes, downplaying ones accomplishments, to seem humble but he also makes sure to address the crowd as President Barack Obama so they have, this is the president speaking to us, fresh in their mind Fallons core demographic of adults is 18 - 34, with college students making up the majority of people who go to his tapings, Obama picked the right topic to address the crowd. Seeming like the kind of president who can have fun and still get to business appeals to the young voter. Appearing on a late night talk show also emulates a sense of humbleness since its a talk show and not directly a news outlet. He makes the crowd feel as though he came to speak to just them tonight. Choosing this specific night was a a great decision on Obamas part since Jimmy Fallon taped his show off site at The University of North Carolina. He addressed an audience of 1,434 as opposed to the much smaller amount back at studio 6B where Fallon usually tapes his show. Obama had a better chance to directly speak with a lot of college students, his topic of course was the rising costs of college tuition. At the end of his bit Obama dropped the mic to excite the audience and again seem cool, always doing his best to seem like the cool president. By addressing the audience as part of his plan to keep college affordable Obama utilizes communicatio, to include one's audience overtly in a discourse. He adresses the rise of loans and uses “you” to connect the problem he wants to solve directly with the audience, which is filled with college students, referring back to the problem as something he will take care of by saying “I have called on congress” to reaffirm the sepertion between the audiences needs and what he is doing to address them. This is also another way of Obama saying his side is against raising costs of college tuition while the other side is for it. 

Another way Obama makes himself seem like an everyday guy is with his love for basketball. I can’t think of any president who has used his interest in sports to his advantage as much as Obama. He does his best to appear at games, meet with players, and appearing on ESPN to fill out his NCAA mens and woman's basketball tournament bracket. Again he picks the right spots to get votes. He is able to seem like a casual basketball fan while still maintaining his presidential status. He is able to go in and out of using specific language depending on who he is addressing. Obama uses aschematiston, the use of plain, unadorned or un-ornamented language and soraismus, to mingle different languages affectedly, to appeal to specific groups. When visiting with the United States mens basketball team his use of language switches from serious political language to simple and slang language. Obama speaks this way with regards to talking basketball knowledge, that basketball is something he enjoys. When addressing the rookie of the team he says “what are ya’ll doing with this rookie man, is he carrying the bgs and stuff” his language is relaxed and simple, relating to the members of the team, coming off as friendly. But it also shows how he understands the traditions of rookie basketball players joining a new team so he comes off as someone who truly enjoys the game and its history. 

Then when he addresses the team as a whole, including the coaching staff, in terms of what they mean to the United States, Obama goes right back into his formal use of language, again showing he is the president and knows when to be serious. The whole time he switches back and forth between the uses of language it seems genuine which is what voters want to see. Hanging out with the basketball players and getting to know them helps Obama reach other outlets. Of course it helps along his aim at getting the black vote and the young vote but it also persuades others to be relaxed towards him, to relate with him, to see their president associating himself passionately with a sport that everyday people do. 

Obama knows that young voters are tech savvy, that they enjoy using web based tools to get their news. By using the same outlets the young voters are used to Obama again seems cool and actually willing to try and communicate with them with something they’re familiar with. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit all convey a sense of close connection between Obama and those following him on these social networks. Reddit in particular is used to connect with voters closely. Again Obama seems like a cool, friendly, and relatable president. Reddits main users age from 25 - 34 and are either in college or have had a college education. So using Reddit as an outlet gives him another unique opportunity to communicate with college students in an environment that is both personal and familiar with current social networking. He is able to relate with the young voter by using the website but can convey the sense of leadership wanted in a president by answering the questions in a serious tone. 

Here is a link to the Reddit site where Obama answered various questions 

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=feed

There’s one particular question that Obama answered that want to show here and pick apart. 

 Q - I am recent law school graduate. Despite graduating from a top school, I find myself unemployed with a large student loan debt burden. While I'm sure my immediate prospects will improve in time, it's difficult to be optimistic about the future knowing that my ability to live a productive life -- to have a fulfilling career, to buy a house, to someday raise a family -- is hampered by my debt and the bleak economic outlook for young people. I know that I'm not alone in feeling this way. Many of us are demoralized. Your 2008 campaign was successful in large part due to the efforts of younger demographics. We worked for you, we campaigned for you, and we turned out in record numbers to vote for you. What can I say to encourage those in similar situations as I am to show up again in November? What hope can you offer us for your second term?

A - I understand how tough it is out there for recent grads. You're right - your long term prospects are great, but that doesn't help in the short term. Obviously some of the steps we have taken already help young people at the start of their careers. Because of the health care bill, you can stay on your parent's plan until you're twenty six. Because of our student loan bill, we are lowering the debt burdens that young people have to carry. But the key for your future, and all our futures, is an economy that is growing and creating solid middle class jobs - and that's why the choice in this election is so important. The other party has two ideas for growth - more taxs cuts for the wealthy (paid for by raising tax burdens on the middle class and gutting investments like education) and getting rid of regulations we've put in place to control the excesses on wall street and help consumers. These ideas have been tried, they didnt work, and will make the economy worse. I want to keep promoting advanced manufacturing that will bring jobs back to America, promote all-American energy sources (including wind and solar), keep investing in education and make college more affordable, rebuild our infrastructure, invest in science, and reduce our deficit in a balanced way with prudent spending cuts and higher taxes on folks making more than $250,000/year. I don't promise that this will solve all our immediate economic challenges, but my plans will lay the foundation for long term growth for your generation, and for generations to follow. So don't be discouraged - we didn't get into this fix overnight, and we won't get out overnight, but we are making progress and with your help will make more.

Obama nicely speaks to the person asking the question directly using the word “you’re.”

Obama addresses how he has helped lower costs and help out students with the repition of “because” to reaffirm that he has put bills forward to help. He also utilizes a sort of accumulatio, bringing together various points made throughout a speech and presenting them again in a forceful, climactic way, by stating the different points of problems the United States he wishes to solve. He gives himself some wiggle room as well by stating “we didn't get into this fix overnight, and we won't get out overnight, but we are making progress and with your help will make more.” Making sure to put everyone on notice that he is working on solving the issues but it will take time, by not putting any timetable at all by saying “we are making progress” Obama backs himself up by not committing to a specific time he will accomplish these goals. 

Obama also reminds the readers what the other party has planned that are working directly against what he is trying to do to help. He refers to them exactly as “the other party” to put them all in one category, not any specific person, to show how serious the other party is in working against him so he can’t help out those who need it. It puts weight on the other party to address them all being against him. 

I feel that Obama has gone through some great lengths in appealing to young voters. He makes it a point to use any means available to him to reach out to them and relate with them. He emulates that friendliness and cool that any voter would like but young voters especially. Acting funny draws in young voters since he is relaxed but he appeals to older voters as well because even though he is having a good time he addresses the problems of the U.S with a serious tone. On Fallon specifically Obama was part of a funny bit but his part was speaking about a serious topic with serious language while Fallon brought the funny. I admire Obamas attempt to get his ideas and communicate with young voters. His strategy in accomplishing this shows him having a good time when speaking about the issues but never seems like he takes it lightly. 

First cat fight.

I thought the debate was a bit, boring. I felt both candidates spoke about the same things we've already heard without expanding more. Personally I felt that Obama stumbled over his words and thoughts a lot more than Romney. If anything Romney seemed more confident when speaking than Obama. Obama did make more eye contact with the camera than Romney did but Obama didn’t seem as confident as he usually does so it took away his appeal of being under control. he didn’t come off as the commander and chief that had the United States under control. 

When talking about the role of government, Obama stated that “the first role is to keep the american people people safe, it’s the most basic function. As Commander and Chief that is something i’ve worked on and thought about every single day that i’ve been in the oval office.”

Here Obama is asserting his power as president while assuring the american people that he has thought of their safety. I thought it was a great way to put in the back of everyones mind that he is the Commander and Chief, that he is always in the Oval office thinking about the american people. He shows his friendly nature with a subtle prowess, it was one of my favorite lines to think about. 

He chooses his words precisely, he doesn’t say president, we always here that, he says “Commander and Chief” the phrase comes across with more authority. Instead of simply saying the The White House he says “Oval Office” the official room of the president, it paints a picture of decision making a place where only the President is. I think these words were chosen specifically to paint a picture of authority, of importance. 

When speaking on education Obama said “ we gotta reform schools that aren’t working, we used something called race to the top, it wasn’t a top down approach governor..”

Here Obama is talking about education and how schools that aren’t working need to be fixed, he uses it as a quick opportunity to throw a jab at Romney. To suggest that Romney is opposed to reforming schools, he didn’t say it directly that way but is implying he did, anything that can show Romney going against school reform will associate him with not wanting to help schools thus making Obama seem liek the only one fighting for better schools. 

Obama also spoke about the teachers, “in fact we’ve seen layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers over the last several years and governor Romney doesn’t believe we need more teachers, I do because I think that is the kind of investment that the federal government can help, they cant do it all but it can make a difference and as a consequence we will have a better trained workforce and that will create jobs because companies want to locate where theres a skilled workforce.”

Here is where I felt Obama hit three key issues being brought up in the debate and used a great logic for how one directly affects the others while again making Romney seem very weak since he portrays him as being against education thus meaning he is against the other things hes referring to. Obama makes the claim that education needs more teachers since many have been laid off and said Romney doesnt believe we do. He follows it a quick “I do” then states that the government can get involved with helping to find more teachers, again answering where the governments role falls on, which creates a better workforce the will create more jobs because companies will go to the areas with the better workforce, Obama uses education as the platform that will lead to better employees and more jobs. By saying this he makes Romney seem like he doesnt believe in eduction so he also doesnt believe in a better workforce or better jobs. 

But Romney had a pretty god response back “I love great schools, Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states, a key to great schools is great teachers, so I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers.”

Here I felt Romney was able to show a strong character of power. He backed up his belief in great schools and teachers by stating that Massachusetts is number one out of all 50 states. Quickly dispelling Obamas previous statement of not caring.

When speaking about the students ability to pay for college Obama uses this other opportunity to throw a jab at Romney and make himself seem like the one who truly understands the students and families that are struggling with eduction costs. 

“Romney believes that students should borrow money from their parents to go to college indicates the degree to which there may not be as much of a focus on the fact that folks like me, or Michelle, or kids who, probably attend the University of Denver don’t have that option. For us to be able to make sure that they’ve got that opportunity to walk through that door is vitally important not just for those kids but to how were going to grow the economy long-term”

Here Obama once again makes himself the President who actually understands the struggles of being a college student, emulating that friendliness and relation to those struggling. He makes sure to directly appeal to those in Denver. A great way to further bring in the attention of those listening to what he is saying. Obama also depicts Romney as the candidate who doesn’t understand the struggle and makes him even seem like more of an unequipped president because he asks students to go to their parents for college money. 

Pathos.

     What i've enjoyed most when picking apart some political speeches is the pathos they use. Since the candidates are vying to lead the United States they do their best to exude a sense of leadership and confidence when speaking. Obama is a fantastic speaker and emulates a confident character when directing the public. A major concern for the United States is education; the costs and quality. In the speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention he spoke about eduction, using an emotional appeal. 

     

     "Government has a role in this. But teachers must inspire; principals must lead; parents must instill a thirst for learning, and students, you’ve got to do the work. And together, I promise you – we can out-educate and out-compete any country on Earth. Help me recruit 100,000 math and science teachers in the next ten years, and improve early childhood education. Help give two million workers the chance to learn skills at their community college that will lead directly to a job. Help us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next ten years. We can meet that goal together. You can choose that future for America...."

     Obama uses the words "we" and "together" to address the crowd. These words evoke a sense of kindness, friendship. While he gives himself responsibility he makes the viewers responsible as well, he makes them feel as a team, that they're working together. By being friendly, that emotion most people find endearing in a man who is trying to lead this country, he can make the viewers friendly toward him, make them want to listen and work with him. He calmly makes everyone involved when tackling an issue while still showing his leadership role. 

     He hits all tiers of education as he ask for help with child education, community college, and universities. He builds on top of each one with their respective challenges. 

     I felt a sense of community he builds with those concerned with education. You want your president to be this great leader but to not forget the people he is leading. 

    "But teachers must inspire; principals must lead; parents must instill a thirst for learning, and students, you’ve got to do the work. And together, I promise you – we can out-educate and out-compete any country on Earth"

     He relates the qualities a president should have, inspire, lead, instill, with those he needs help from. He makes the people he is asking help from feel as valuable to education as he is. He makes a promise to the United States of greatness, that the people will be the ones to give the U.S. greatness.

He lays out his plan for everyone to hear then finishes it with,

You can choose that future for America....

Making sure everyone knows it's not up to him, its up to you.

Political rhetoric on energy.

http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2012/09/more-political-rhetoric-on-energy-the-democrat-version/



in the speech that Obama gave he speaks about cutting oil in the United States, se speaks of how much, but never says if it is enough or if it's helping. Its an emotional plea on his side, he knows america is worried about oil spending and the rise of gas prices. So by saying he has been lowering it sounds good to those listening. He's counting on peoples worry of rising prices and not much more. Because people are emotionally drained and worried about gas prices, just hearing that he is making great strides towards lowering it, is emotionally appealing

Encomium of Helen

Is language really uncontrollable? The persuader and the audience aren't in control, rhetoric is simply an exchange, are we all trapped by language? Is our identity just constructions of the language that defines us?