Lehi--Ethos to Pursuade Men to look to the Great Mediator

2 Nephi Chapter 2 was first analyzed by Isaac.

As Lehi's life is nearing it's final years, he decides to deliver unique messages to each of his sons and their families to hopefully persuade them to turn to the Lord in all their doings. In 2 Nephi chapter 2, Lehi's message is directed to his son Jacob. Unique from other chapters in the Book of Mormon, this one is heavily loaded with logos. Lehi presents his message strongly through acceptability, good reasoning, sufficiency, accountability, and relevance, all which are important aspects to strong logos.

Beginning in verse 11, Lehi begins this long chain of reasoning. He states that "there is opposition in all things." He uses the example that there is righteousness and wickedness, holiness and misery, corruption and incorruption, sense and insensibility. With these examples of opposition, some may say that there is no such thing as righteousness and wickedness. This could partly be the result of one's faith. However, in order to make his argument more complete, he also uses the opposition of good and bad, life and death, and happiness and misery. Most people have experienced or witnessed these things, whether it is breaking something, losing a loved one to death, or enjoying a favorite pastime. By giving these everyday examples Lehi is able to create acceptability since they are true for most people and considered "common sense."

Sufficiency is also a great tactic when expressing logos. Lehi gives a variety of examples, about twenty or so, of opposition. Now twenty-something examples may seem a bit overwhelming, but he examples are very simple, and therefore, effective. He expands his thoughts to create an "full circle" idea. By connecting all his examples of opposition, Lehi builds accountability that "offer[s] an effective response to other...argument...counterarguments, and counterexamples". (W & R, p. 75, par. 7) He states, "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." (verse 13) It's clear to see from Lehi's argument that since there are things here on Earth and that things are acted upon, or have opposition, there must needs a purpose.

In verse 13, acceptability is also present. During ancient times, scientific advancements and knowledge was quite limited. They knew nothing about the idea of cells and organisms or the Big Bang Theory and evolution. Without this knowledge, it was acceptable to believe in a higher intelligence such as God to explain why Earth and the things on it were created. "Community-based reasons" is a part of acceptability that is defined as "reasons that are grounded in the common beliefs of the community...what [they] accept as credible...or true--the common sense or common knowledge." (W & R, p. 73, par. 1)

Continuing in his use of acceptability, accountability and reasoning, Lehi draws upon his own observations. He says, "there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. And to bring about his eternal purposes...all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God." (verses 14-17)

Lastly, Lehi uses his presented idea of opposition because of its relevance to choose the "good part." His thoughts allows him to deliver the conclusion that men are free to "to act for themselves and not to be acted upon...[and] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil." (verses 26 & 27) By approaching his argument with logos, Lehi convinces his son Jacob and many other to choose to come unto Christ.

Obama's Pep Talks

A couple months ago President Obama set about speaking to children at schools across the country. In Jessica's analysis she used Bill Schorr's political cartoon to help pointed out the logical fallacies in the right wing school of thought concerning the matter. The cartoon shows that conservatives think Obama's school speeches will lead to the demise of the Republican Party. Right wing conservatives didn't want their children persuaded to be democrats by being subjected to a democratic lecture in school. Some parents even kept kept their children home from school. They didn't want their children to be "brainwashed" into following and supporting Obama.

In Jessica's analysis she pointed out two logical fallacies in the conservative reasoning. First, she observed how the right wing argument was a hasty generalization. Just because voters are educated doesn't mean they will vote democratic. Members of both political parties are just as educated as the other. In adding to this analysis, it should also be noted that the argument is a post hoc fallacy. A post hoc fallacy is an assumption that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second. In this specific case the first event is the school lectures, and the second event is voting day when their children vote for a democrat. The argument becomes even more fallacious because the conservatives are jumping the gun, and assuming that the school lectures have already led to their children voting against their ideology. It is a huge assumption, and it brings us back to Jessica's point of the hasty generalization.

The second fallacy pointed out by Jessica is oversimplification. They ignore all other reasons why the Democratic Party is in power, and instead they blame it solely on Obama's little motivational speeches. It could also be deemed a slippery slope fallacy. Schorr's cartoon illustrates how one thing leads to the next, which leads to the next. This train of thought is not easy to stop; you just keep assuming that one event will lead to an even more catastrophic event. Maybe someday all the little school children who sat trough Obama's lectures will grow up to be socialists. Adding Jessica's insight, the fallacy here becomes an oversimplified slippery slope, with only a few stops on the way down. Blaming Obama's recent school speeched is also fallacious he didn't even start the speeches until he was already in office. You can't blame an event from 2009 for an event that occured in 2008. Time moves forward, not backwards.

On a side note, Bill Schorr's political cartoon, although great at fulfilling its purpose, may also have a couple fallicious tricks at work. For one, take a look at that obnoxiously ugly republican. Who really looks like that? Certainly nobody in the Democratic Party, right? Furthermore, the speech bubbles illustrate first grade reasoning with a first grade speech level. Bill Schorr even took advantage of facial expressions. The character's face doesn't light up with anxiety until the third and final frame, as if it took him that long to figure out where his sentence was going to lead him. Granted, cartoons are meant to be funny and exaggerated; they just use some fabulous fallacies in the process.

Despite the cartoon's tricks, it makes a great point: the bottom line is that right wing conservatives are still failing to look at the big picture. There is far more to politics than giving speeches to children at schools. Besides, how many opportunities does one get to hear the president speak? If conservatives would look past the immediate future they might see the benefits of attending such a lecture. Listening to a democratic president speak is not even close to a sure-fire way to turn republican children into democrats. The children may not even know what a political party is. So please, let the kids listen to the president.

Schorr, Bill. "Cagle Cartoons." Cartoon. Daryl Cagle's Poltical Cartoon Index. msnbc.com, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

Chicago- President and Mrs.Obama's Logical Fallacies

This address was first analyzed by Brandon.

On October 2, 2009, President and Mrs.Obama gave an address to the International Olympic Committee. In both of their speeches, they attempt to use ethos, pathos, and logos to make their arguments more persuasive. However, some logical fallacies are present.

The first logical fallacy I came across is in Mrs. Obama's speech. She discusses how her dad had a great influence on her views about sports, rules, honor, dignity, and fair play. She uses pathos by describing her father's illness and how he still taught her and others a great deal of life lessons. Finally, she discusses how it is important to carry on the "lasting legacy" to inspire this generation "to bring us together; to usher in a new era of international engagement" (par. 14).

This argument also uses logos because she discusses this common belief/change that many people desire to see in the world. However, she uses a "red herring." Mrs. Obama gives this example about her father and how he affected her life, but ultimately, she does not give effective evidence as to how Chicago can accommodate the Olympics. She tells a story that really isn't relevant to the subject at hand.

Mrs. Obama's argument ends and President Barack Obama brings better arguments to table. In all honesty, without President Obama's better arguments, I would find Mrs.Obama's speech quite pointless.

President Obama's speech also contains a few logical fallacies. The first is the presence of "ad populum," and more specifically, "the appeal to traditional wisdom" and "the appeal to provincialism." Chicago claims to be "a city that works -- from its first World's Fair more than a century ago to the World Cup [they] hosted in the nineties, [they] know how to put on big events." President Obama explains that big events have occurred in Chicago before and therefore, the Olympics should come (appeal to traditional wisdom). Also, his explanation also implies that since they know how to run large events, Chicago is "automatically superior to the unfamiliar" (W & R, p. 70, par. 1). If they have already experienced putting on World events and were successful, who is to say another city that has not previously hosted such an event is incapable of doing so. Why not let other great cities experience this type of recognition that Chicago has already experienced.

Lastly, President Barack Obama said, "people from every corner of the world gathered...in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about [him] as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals...[that] diversity could be a source of strength, a cause for celebration." The logical fallacy here is that the President is making a hasty generalization. There may have been many who were watching the Presidential election for that very reason. However, there must have been many who were watching it for other reasons (for example, to watch President Obama as an individual). It is faulty to believe that all who were watching were there to see how the "universal aspirations and ideals" are coming to a reality.

There were many good points in President and Mrs. Obama's speeches, such as history, culture, character, and diversity. However, with these logical fallacies in place, their speeches lose the power that they really could establish.

Elder Holland's "Power of the Word"

Last Conference, Elder Jeffery R. Holland delivered the profound talk "None Were With Him." As I have posted before, his talk truly appealed to the emotions, therefore exercising a great use of pathos. However, I find that Elder Holland's talk was only as powerful as it proved to be by his powerful words and use of language tools.

As I have stated in my previous post:

Elder Jeffery R. Holland exercises the "strategies for creating an emotional appeal" through his vivid details and language. (W & R, pg. 66) He is able to "re-create an emotional experience in such a way that readers actually feel the associated emotion." (W & R, pg. 67) Now one thing to point out: to truly understand what the Savior did is incomprehensible. However, Holland is able to describe the life-ending journey of the Savior as completely as possible by the mere mortal human through imagery.

This vivid imagery of the final stages of Jesus Christ's life makes this message so concrete.

He continues to use emotional appeal strategies, all of which increases pathos in an argument, by using words such as solitude, withdrawal, loneliness, hopelessness, despair, anguish, brutality, denial, abandonment and betrayal. This diction creates a feeling of empathy toward Christ and all that he suffered. His argument is strong in the fact that the "perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing" (par. 13) NEVER deserved to be be treated in the ruthless way that he was. This argument easily allows the audiences' emotions to be aroused considering most people believe the innocent should not be punished.

The words of Elder Holland have now also become the narration to a video post depicting the final days of the Savior. Now with the addition of visual aids, the message becomes more vivid and therefore, more concrete. The clips shown is the video post causes one to feel great emotion towards the Savior, considering the images shown are painful and filled with sadness. One is able to better understand only a fraction of the inexpressible pain Christ suffered.

This imagery is expressed, for example, when Elder Holland states:

"With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone."

From this passage, I can create the this emotional scene because of the imagery. Since I create this, it brings a much more personal feeling to the topic.

Now to add to this, by setting such a sad, sympathetic tone, one automatically becomes drawn to the pathos that are created in such an speech. His diction and the sensitivity of the topic contributes to the set tone. This sensitivity is aided by the allusion of the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of the Savior Jesus Christ, which has a very tender place in the hearts of Christians.

Elder Holland's diction, imagery, tone, and allusion contribute to the great emotional appeal all those who hear his message experience. It is easy to see that pathos and other rhetorical proofs are best used when language tools are exercised effectively.

Can we play this game like men?

I have noticed lately how lengthy articles tend to lose the reader and make an argument hard to follow. Luckily, I stumbled upon a beautiful little piece of rhetoric. It is Coach Boone's inspirational speech to his players in Remember the Titans. The speech is short and the pathos is sweet.

Coach Boone is trying to get his players to overcome racism and play as a team. He has taken them to a battle field in Gettysburg. He compares their struggle over racism to the north and south fighting in the Civil War. In essence the Civil War was fought over slavery, which according to coach is "the same fight that we're still fightin' amongst ourselves today." Madeleine points out that this was particularly powerful to the players because it was there own heritage. It was the segregation they were dealing with everyday. This effectively brings it home for the players.

With strong language and careful word choice he stirs the emotions of his players. They don't want to suffer the consequences of their forefathers, with "smoke and hot lead pourin' through their bodies." Madeleine explains how using colors like "green field" and "red blood" adds to the mental picture. In addition to this, I think that by using words such as "hallowed" Coach Boone makes the players feel like they are fighting this fight for some higher cause. It appeals directly to their consciences.

The coach puts it to the sticking place in his closing remarks. If they don't come together they will be destroyed --physically and spiritually. If they do come together, he says that "maybe [they'll] learn to play this game like men." This subtle insult to the players is insinuating that they don't play it like men already. Just like a little child reacts in defiance to an a insult, the players want to prove they are men. How do they do it? On the football field. How did Coach Boone do it? By appealing to their emotions.

(This speech was also analyzed by Madeleine)

Great Expectations--For Young Adults

As I began my post about audience analysis, I could not help but notice that a certain aspect of kairos was similar to the idea of audience analysis. Kairos, when effectively used, includes making an argument to the "right people under the right circumstances." In President Monson CES Fireside Broadcast "Great Expectations," he definitely follows this guideline.

First of all, his audience is given to the students of Brigham Young University and is additionally broadcasted to young adults at other Church Universities and Religion institutions around the world. Young adults are in a very important time in their lives. It is a time when they will decide what majors and careers to pursue, decide who to marry, and what they want to do with their life. It's a time of great decisions. The audience is "close to completing [their] formal education. Others...have additional periods of academic preparation ahead. Each is what could be called the race of life." President Thomas S. Monson message is written "at the right time" to help direct the paths of these young adults and therefore addresses "the race of life," education and academics, spirituality, pitfalls, and goals.

President Monson discusses a book that most of the high school graduates and college students should be familiar with: Charles Dicken's Great. By understanding his audience, President Monson's message becomes persuasive since he also quotes scholars, scientists, influential writers, and other important figures that these young adults may know about or trust.

Additionally, President Monson addresses the issues that young adults face now. This includes the job hiring process, "[struggling] for that grade point average" (p. 4, par. 3), pornography, inappropriate movies, books, and music, and that "permissiveness, immorality, and the power of peer pressure cause many to be tossed about on the sea of sin and crushed on the jagged reefs of lost opportunities, forfeited blessings, and shattered dreams." (p. 5, par. 9)

Secondly, President Thomas S. Monson addresses the "right people." A simple example is that President Monson explains "[he's] always been an ardent sports fan" (p. 6, par. 2). Since many college aged adults enjoy sports, he connects with them by explaining that he too shares that same interest. A more complex example is that President Monson speaks to a mostly LDS population, where he is able to discuss matters about eternal life, Heavenly Father, children of God, and important Church figures. Additionally, he includes scripture from all stand works. By knowing his audience, he is then able to deliver is speech without much explanation about the people, doctrine, or history unlike delivering a speech to those not of the LDS faith or background information. He uses phrases such as "spirit children," "mortality," and "Quorum of the Twelve." He stated, "you have great expectations-not a s the result of an unknown benefactor, bust as the result of a known benefactor-even our Heavenly Father-and great things are expected of you." This statement becomes very powerful to the audience since most are LDS and as members know that we are children of God. There are many people who do not understand this concept, and therefore it would not be as beneficial to them. I also find that his quote is one that encourages both the strong and the struggling young adults. It goes to show that President Monson knows that the faith of the audience varies between individuals.

These various examples demonstrate President Thomas S. Monson's awareness of the audience allowing him to create a convincing message to remind the young adults that they "are a choice generation with great expectations...[and that they may] strive always to achieve those great expectations" (p.8, par. 4).

President Monson's Toolbox - of Language

Every good Latter Day Saint knows of President Monson's incredible ability to tell stories. He brings us into his world where we can fully understand the principles he is teaching. In his talks he uses a plethora of language tools. Some are obvious and some are discreet. The use of a story in and of itself could be considered a language tool. I would like to look at some of the tools he uses in his May 2009 Priesthood address.

When Lars analyzed this talk one of the points he made up was that President Monson establishes ethos by refering to and quoting past prophets. In terms of language tools, this is called an allusion (Writing and Rhetoric 94). An allusion refers back to a notable historical figure or event. This is so common in our church rhetoric that we aren't often phased by it. President Monson refering to quotes by Harold B. Lee and John Taylor establishes his ethos by setting him on an equal pedi stool with other great figures. Whether consciously or unconsciously the audience associates President Monson with fairytaled prophets of the past. The ultimate allusion he uses is the cornerstone of our religion: Christ. I believe that building a talk around Christ provides the ultimate source of legitimacy. It is a simple language tool effectively used.

President Monson is also a master of imagery. His vivid language lets the reader picture exactly what he is talking about. In this talk his three main points are to study diligently, pray fervently, and live righteously. He doesn't just say to study, pray, and live. Each adjective evokes a feeling and mental picture from the reader. What is the difference between praying normally and praying diligently? The word diligently gives the word study a completely reinvented meaning. The same goes for fervently and righteously; maybe a fervent prayer lasts ten minutes instead of 3. Later in the talk he compares life to a pathway on which we are journeying. How much easier is to view life when you simplify it with a simile? Perhaps the audience can imagine their specific pathway with all the specific pit stops along the way. The prophet's dazzling use of imagery infinitely enhances the ability of the audience to relate to the message.

The final language tool of President Monson's that I'd like to look at is his use of analogies. This also is used an incredible amount in the church. Parables are analogies. An example is the tree of life. We are familiar with trees and fruit, so the Lord uses them to help us understand harder topics like Christ and eternal life. President Monson uses the same parable with emphasis on holding to the rod of iron. Holding to the rod is analogous to studying diligently (one of his three main points). How so? It is easy for some people to imagine literally grabbing onto an iron rod. It is real; it is tangible. If one can grasp a rod with such vigor, why can't one study with such vigor? Parables like this are beneficial because they liken a more abstract idea to a tangible, familiar idea that the audience can relate to.

It could be said that President Monson uses words to make his argument --that is exactly true. The tools he uses and the tone he embodies come together to create a moving message for all Latter Day Saints. I think it is important to note one last tool he uses: the Spirit.

(This article was also analyzed by Lars)

Nuclear Power is the Only Green Solution

Lovelock's article is about how the earth is in immediate danger from all the pollution. Lovelock wants everyone to understand why we are in peril and what we need to do to change if we want to survive. He uses language tools to make his audience understand.

First of all, I think his entire article is an overstatement. Lovelock completely dramatizes the whole issue on global warming. He compares the warming of the Earth to a fire that is "accelerating and almost no time is left to act" (par. 6). The earth is slowly becoming warmer, not burning like a fire. Lovelock also doesn't cite anything. He has no sources to backup his claim. His article isn't reliable at all. Lovelock does use some good personifications and analogies to try and convince his audience and I will analyze those.

One of the main language tools Lovelock uses is personification. The first example is in the third paragraph. "The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming". This example gives the ice in the Arctic human characteristics because it will be more 'vulnerable' when it is warmed up. Using descriptive words makes the reader feel like they understand how the ice feels, when the ice doesn't actually have feelings.

The second example, "[civilization] has to use nuclear... now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet." (par. 16), gives our planet feelings which is also personification. The planet itself cannot be outraged, but Lovelock gives it this description because he wants the reader to feel related to the earth. The earth has always been given lots of personification in writing and speaking. We refer to the earth as a 'her' or as 'mother earth'. When the audience feels like they share the same feelings as the earth, they have more empathy and would more likely help the earth in a similar way as a person.

The main language tool that Lovelock uses is analogies. An analogy is "a kind of comparison in which something unfamiliar is explained by a comparison to something more familiar." (R&W pg. 94, Brett c. McInelly). Analogies are a good tool to use because they are easy to remember and understand. They are especially useful in scientific papers when the majority of the population wouldn't understand unless more simple comparisons are used.

Lovelock says, "...climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests...[and] the world... would lose one of its great natural air conditioners". Everyone knows the beauty of an air conditioner. Especially in the summer. The difference between summer heat and an air conditioned room is incredible. Lovelock puts this analogy into his paper to demonstrate what the difference in temperature would be if the pollution problem isn't taken care of and we lose the Amazon. Even those who don't know much about global warming can appreciate what this would be like.

Another analogy is in paragraph 6 which says, "It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice... that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited". This, like the previous analogy, is a comparison so the reader can visualize the temperature difference. I think this comparison is also used to show the damage that global warming would create. Lovelock doesn't just say that the fire is out of control, but also that the 'furniture had ignited'. Lovelock demonstrates that if nuclear power is not implemented, the results will leave irreparable damage.

I Have a Dream

Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech made such an impact through history. It changed our country. Why was his speech so powerful? Without King's credibility and background, the speech would not have been nearly as profound. His ethos is so important and King does an excellent job at weaving his credibility into his speech.

King obviously relates to one of the audiences because he is African American, which gives him credibility. Even if we didn't know what King has done for African American rights, he establishes himself by creating an intimate relationship with the audience. By using the word "we", King shows that he has had a lot of the same experiences as the rest of the African Americans.

The African American audiences feel like they know him more personally because King implies that they have been through the same trials. He calls them "my friends" (par. 15), and treats his audience as if they know each other personally. By combining himself with the audience, King also proves that he is not just arguing for self-interests. He wants change for the entire African American population.

King is trying to convince the entire United States population that African Americans should be given their rights. He wants to convince the Government because the location is at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. He wants to convince the religious black and white men and women, that everyone can come together as "God's Children" (par. 6). He wants to convince those who don't believe African Americans should be free. "And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights" (par. 7).

King also wants to convince the African American people to continue to fight without violence. "We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence" (par. 8). By making it clear he wants to negotiate peacefully, King appeals to the police force, and gains credibility by not advocating any violent acts. Finally, King encourages the African Americans in the South and the North, to have hope that the situation will change.

One of the main African American audiences King is trying to convince are those who think that waiting will solve their problems. "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy... Now is the time to make justice a reality for all God's children" (par. 6). King's credibility is so powerful at this point in his speech because of his experience and letter he wrote while in Birmingham Jail. In the letter, King says that he is disappointed with the "white moderate" and white religious people for being "more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace..." and for "[believing] he can set the timetable for another man's freedom..." (par. 19). Birmingham Jail is where King really developed his solid view about not sitting by and waiting for freedom.

Martin Luther King says, "I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come from fresh narrow jail cells". King, and many other African Americas, were unjustly put in prison. King describes the jail cells as "narrow" which gives the audiences an image of the cells, but also eludes to the narrow-mindedness white men in the South. In this context, going to jail gave the African Americans credibility because of the unjust laws that put them there. It stood as proof of the prejudice that was in the South.

King recognizes the value of his argument when he shares his personal desires. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (par. 20) He connects to the audience by sharing what his dream is for his family and every African American family. Using this personal information, King establishes that he is a father with little children and relates to others who are in the same position.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck commits logical fallacies in his news report, "Does Congress Matter?" One of his fallacies is guilt by association. Beck assumes that all of congress and politics are corrupt. He doesn't give the reader or listener a chance to even think that maybe Congress isn't all completely corrupt. Because Beck assumes that Congress is selfish and greedy, he make the audience assume the same. Beck gives good examples of how some members of Congress are spending money, and generalizes that to all of Congress. He says, "That's all I'm looking for: 56 brave men and women out of the 535 in Congress today... to stand up to the corruption..." Beck is "stereotyping all members of the group" (Writing and Rhetoric, Gary Hatch).

Another fallacy that Glenn Beck commits is poisoning the well. He makes the issue so biased and one-sided, that anyone who wants to disagree with him would look "immoral" (Writing and Rhetoric, Gary Hatch). I mean, who doesn't want Congress to spend money on what "the people want"? As if anyone even knows what it is that the people really do want. If someone did want to disagree with Beck, the other part of the readers and listeners would have a hard time agreeing because Glenn Beck is so credible. His audience is so willing to consent to whatever Beck says that contradictory view points would feel imposing.

The last fallacy that I found in Glenn Beck's article is his assumption that everyone wants to change all of Congress. When in reality, everyone likes their own congress members, it is the "other ones" that are disliked. If a democrat could choose who was in Congress, they would get rid of the republicans and keep their own party. Beck misinterprets and assumes that America wants to kick out all of Congress when everyone actually just has certain members that they have problems with.

Pearl Harbor

President Roosevelt used pathos when he gave his speech to the American people after the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was a very emotional time for America because it involved war and the want for peace. Lives were lost in the attack and that evoked an emotional response. The people killed at Pearl Harbor were not relatives of everyone, but our nation as a whole has an emotional bond that connects everyone together. President Roosevelt used this emotion to his advantage and explained why America needed to enter the war, "...a formal reply to a recent American message... contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack".

President Roosevelt wanted to enter the war previously to the Pearl Harbor attack. "He wanted to prevent war in Europe, and in October 1937, Roosevelt proposed that the United States lead the "peace loving nations" in placing aggressive nations... under quarantine". But Roosevelt's idea "raised a storm of criticism". (Smitha par. 1) Roosevelt was passionate and knew the direction he wanted to take. He just needed to convince the American people.

President Roosevelt used specific words and phrases to bring his point across. "the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned..." (par. 5), "Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States." (par. 5), "severe damage" (par. 6), and "the facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves." (par. 13), were convincing in Roosevelt's speech and made Americans emotionally respond to the Japanese.

Roosevelt also had a very good logos appeal and used many facts to connect the idea of Japanese attacking other countries, to why America should enter the war. He listed the places Japan had attacked and concluded that the Japanese undertook "...a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area." (par. 13). President Roosevelt went on to say that he would defend our nation by going to war.

In 'Writing and Rhetoric' it says that "...a message that is primarily emotional is more persuasive than a message that is primarily logical." (Gary Hatch, page 65) The next paragraph in the Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation was President Roosevelt's best pathos appeal. He said, "The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory." (par. 15). Roosevelt used pathos because winning comes with a lot of emotion. Roosevelt said the United States will to go war in "righteous might", so the purpose is just and the opponent is in the wrong.

His speech came all together to the main issue of going to war, and destroyed any possible thought of losing because America will have an "absolute victory". I believe that because of Roosevelt's convincing use of pathos, Americans had such a strong response to the Pearl Harbor attack that it not only led to the United States entering the war, but also to the dropping of the atomic bombs.

What's Wrong With Divorce?

Gary Hatch said that "arguments from logos require claims and reasons as their basic structure" (Writing and Rhetoric 71). Karl Zinsmeister uses both good and bad logos in his article Divorce's Toll On Children. His two largest fallacies of logos are seen in the first several paragraphs.

In the beginning of the article there seems to be unlimited facts about how detrimental divorce is to children. Megan's analysis discussed how facts like these appeal to the readers emotions. She says they are "blunt and overwhelming." The facts include a claim that since 1972, one million children have suffered from their parents divorcing each year. He also says that about half of the children today go through a "marital rupture." Only one in ten children that have gone through divorce see there other parent at least once a week, and only one in five keep a close relationship with both parents. These statistics do indeed stir the emotions like Megan said, but they stir the emotions of those who believe everything they read on the internet. There is not one citation or any references to which studies came up with all these brilliant numbers. Even though they are most likely true, Zinsmeister is only appealing to the ignorant and those who don't know any better than to believe everything they read on the internet.

Megan also points out that a key tactic used by Zinmeister is fear. Fear does stir the emotions of the readers as Megan says, but in some cases it makes for poor logos. Zinmeister uses facts and words that scare the reader and make them think negatively. Language like this ruins logos by forcing the reader to associate negativity with the author and the article.

Another fallacy of logos is referred to by Gary Hatch as "stacking the deck" (Writing and Rhetoric 79). It is when an argument gives no acknowledgment to the other side of the issue. No where in the article are there any reasons why divorce might be good or necessary in some situations. Every argument, every fact, and every evidence is describing the detrimental effects of divorce.

Now with all this said I certainly do not condone divorce. Zinsmeister makes many great arguments later on that he backs up fully. He uses studies from reliable sources such as the University of Michigan, Gallup Inc., and The National Survey of Children. Using these studies he effectively argues that divorce in a child's life leads to a significant change in a child's views on love and commitment for the rest of there lives. These arguments are relevant and acceptable, and avoid logical fallacies.

(This article was also analyzed by Megan Corkran)

Great Expectations--Words From The Prophet

Brigham Young University has the wonderful opportunity to hold firesides and devotional in the Marriot Center on a regular basis. The speakers usually include highly esteemed professors or General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In most cases, the firesides are broadcasted across the world to other young adults. The words they speak are ones that can become of a great benefit to those who earnestly listen and take to heart. On January 11, 2009, President Thomas S. Monson gave a CES Fireside Message. By exercising multiple effective strategies of ethos, he influenced many people to continue to be strong and diligent through their course of life.

Building trust is the main strategy an author exercises when creating ethos. President Thomas S. Monson uses statements like "My dear young friends" and "my young brothers and sisters." These statements draw a connection between President Monson and those who hear his voice. Such words build trust between the speaker and the listener because people tend to trust those who are family, friends, and those who are of importance to them. In addition, the use of "young" demonstrates an authoritative voice since it implies he is older and therefore wiser from more years of experience.

President Thomas S. Monson continues to build this established trust throughout his speech by using the words "we" and "our" in order to establish the idea that the audience shares similar experiences with himself. By using a first-person point of view, "an intimate, personal, and friendly relationship [is created] between writer and readers." (W & R, p. 61) For example, President Monson states, "Greater than our period of academic preparation is the matter of spiritual preparation. We must acquire for ourselves a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which testimony will be an anchor to our soul...We must first have a desire to know for ourselves. We must study. We must pray. We must do the will of the father. And then we will know the truth." (p. 4, par. 5 & 12) His statement demonstrates that he too must do these things. Therefore, this allows readers to trust him more because he is discussing a topic that is of great personal importance.

Not only that, but President Monson's topic is one that shows his interests in others. This is shown when he applies a second-person point of view. He states, "Oh, my young brothers and sisters, make room for the Lord in your homes and in your hearts, and He will be your companion. He will be by your side. He will teach you the way of truth...You can go forward in this race of life and achieve your own great expectations." This technique grabs the readers attention and convinces the audience of his concern for them through his repetitive use of "you" and "your." With both a first- and second-person point of view, President Thomas S. Monson gives a very "balanced presentation." (W & R, p. 62)

Not only does President Monson use point of view to effectively use ethos, but he also builds credibility through "voice merging. Voice merging occurs when a writer quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to an authoritative voice." (W & R, p. 60) He quotes or paraphrases scriptures from the book of Ecclesiastes, First Peter, the book of Abraham, John, D & C, Hebrews, and Second Timothy. Additionally, he quotes influential figures such as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Charles Dickens, Dr. Glenn Doman, Henry Ford, Joseph Smith, Stephen L Richards, John Dryden, Christopher Columbus, and the Apostle Paul.

President Thomas S. Monson's persuasion about his care for the young adults and his knowledge through personal experience allowed speech became such an influential and convincing message. This is because he successfully built trust with the audience through his choice of words and quotes and developed strong ethos and credibility for himself.

Proactiv Solutions

If you want to get rid of acne, you need to use Proactiv Solutions--everybody knows that. Why? Because Proactiv advertisements are pure genius. A key to their advertisement is an effective appeal to the right audience.

Getting on the Proactiv website is like diving into pool beautiful people. You are graced with endless pictures of actresses, of dancers, and of Miss America. These bombshells are there to say "You can look like me if you use Proactiv!" The advertisement is appealing not to beautiful people, but people who want to be beautiful. Proactiv realizes that they can appeal to these people's emotions more than those of others. Realizing this increases their productivity because they draw the interest of the right people. All someone has to do is use the three step treatment and they will be beautiful.

Another interesting point is that the advertisement seems to focus more on females. Four out of the five celebrity endorsements on the home page are females. Girls tend to care about how they look more than boys, therefore, they are the ones that will spend more money on skin care. Studies have also shown that women also tend to have acne longer in their life as well. In their 40's, over 26% of women and only 12% of men had acne. By focusing their advertisement on women Proactiv is appealing to a bigger market and increasing their profit.

Lastly, Proactiv is clearly focusing their advertisement on white people. Every celebrity endorsement, and all but one of the "before and after" examples are Caucasian. In the United States the average white has a higher income than the average African-American or Hispanic. Proactiv appeals mainly to whites because they are the people with the most money. Once again, they are focusing on the audience that will give them the highest profit.

Proactiv Solutions has success because they capture the right audience in their advertisement. Specifically, they appeal to white females that want to be beautiful. Although they capture many other audiences who benefit from the product, they have pinpointed the key users of Proactiv. This appeal makes their advertisements successful.

Video Game Violence

Video Games and Violence

Links to video games and teen violence have been proven in the last couple of years. Many argue that video games are just that, a game. But studies have shown that there is more brian activity in the emotional arousal section of the brain, called the amygdala. The research has also found that there is also a "decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition, and attention." (par. 2)

But who really cares about video game violence? Definitely not the teenagers who play these types of video games. Teenagers who enjoy their PS2s and their Xboxes don't want to hear about how they may becoming more violent or losing their self-control. So who cares? Well the parents care. That is why the article "Does game violence make teens aggressive?" is completely geared towards the parents of children who play video games.

This article is very scientific and wouldn't be as interesting for a younger person to read. The subject is very appealing to adults who have teenagers because they would obviously be concerned for their kids and violence. Because it is so capturing for a parent who wants to know more about how violence and video games are related, the parent will continue reading the article to learn about the relationship.

Although other audiences may find interest in this article, for example grandparents or babysitters, the main targeted audience is the parents. "...there's a much smaller body of research on video games...That's a scary thing for a parent." (par. 16) Parents have the most influence over their children and their activities. Neighbors, friends, and relatives do not have that same inpact. These other audiences can persuade teens one way or another, but not as directly as parents. Therefore, the article is going to aim the arguments to parents. "...parents need to be more aware of how kids are using their free time." (par. 30)

I found this article on the internet and when I opened the page, an advertisement popped up. I found it interesting that an article that is against video games and violence, would have a pop up advertisement for the Xbox 360 Elite which is now $100 off. I wondered how the advertising company could be so dumb and put the new Xbox ad on "Does game violence make teens aggressive?". Then I thought that maybe teens would find this article interesting. Teens who want to argue that video games don't lead to violence might want to read this aritcle to understand the other view point. So although the main audience is the parents, teens might also read this article, even though they are not the intended audience.

Pathos--In General Conference

During the 179th General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in April 2009, Elder Jeffery R. Holland gave a moving address about the atonement and crucifixion of the Savior Jesus Christ. Through his use of pathos, he is able to effectively provoke the thoughts of the audience which cause them to more deeply reflect on what happened during that great historical event and what it truly means to them.

Elder Jeffery R. Holland exercises the "strategies for creating an emotional appeal" through his vivid details and language. (W & R, pg. 66) He is able to "re-create an emotional experience in such a way that readers actually feel the associated emotion." (W & R, pg. 67) Now one thing to point out: to truly understand what the Savior did is incomprehensible. However, Holland is able to describe the life-ending journey of the Savior as completely as possible by the mere mortal human through imagery.

This vivid imagery of the final stages of Jesus Christ's life makes this message so concrete.

He continues to use emotional appeal strategies, all of which increases pathos in an argument, by using words such as solitude, withdrawal, loneliness, hopelessness, despair, anguish, brutality, denial, abandonment and betrayal. This diction creates a feeling of empathy toward Christ and all that he suffered. His argument is strong in the fact that the "perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing" (par. 13) NEVER deserved to be be treated in the ruthless way that he was. This argument easily allows the audiences' emotions to be aroused considering most people believe the innocent should not be punished.

The words of Elder Holland have now also become the narration to a video post depicting the final days of the Savior. Now with the addition of visual aids, the message becomes more vivid and therefore, more concrete. The clips shown is the video post causes one to feel great emotion towards the Savior, considering the images shown are painful and filled with sadness. One is able to better understand only a fraction of the inexpressible pain Christ suffered.

Holland continues his message to explain that these terrible feelings were essential in order to have they Savior of the World experience EVERYTHING, including the withdrawal of the Spirit, and in order to complete the Atonement for all mankind.

By the conclusion of Elder Holland's talk, he now incorporates why this journey should be important to others. I cannot better explain how the Savior's journey affects the lives of mankind today than by what Elder Holland stated. "One of the great consolations of this Easter season is that because Jesus walked such a long, lonely path utterly alone, we do not have to do so. His solitary journey brought great company for our little version of that path—the merciful care of our Father in Heaven, the unfailing companionship of this Beloved Son, the consummate gift of the Holy Ghost, angels in heaven, family members on both sides of the veil, prophets and apostles, teachers, leaders, friends. All of these and more have been given as companions for our mortal journey because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the Restoration of His gospel. Trumpeted from the summit of Calvary is the truth that we will never be left alone nor unaided, even if sometimes we may feel that we are. Truly the Redeemer of us all said, “I will not leave you comfortless. [My Father and] I will come to you [and abide with you].” (par. 15)

Through this statement, the audience will realize the blessing Jesus Christ can be in their life because they now don't have to experience the pain that Elder Holland so vividly expressed. Pathos, both through words and imagery, allows Elder Holland's remarkable words carry an emotionally powerful effect today on one's reflection on the meaning of the Savior Jesus Christ. By keeping the audience in an emotional bond with what he previously explained, he is able to successfully deliver his final plead to the us. He desires that "we declare ourselves to be more fully disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, not in word only and not only in the flush of comfortable times but in deed and in courage and in faith, including when the path is lonely and when our cross is difficult to bear...[that] we stand by Jesus Christ “at all times and in all things, and in all places that [we] may be in, even until death.” (par. 16)

Heathcare

Now is the Time to Deliver on Healthcare
President Obama uses logos to connect his ideas together and show how healthcare needs to be reformed now. Logos was a much better chioce for Obama to use instead of pathos because he is talking to Congress. By logically expressing his ideas for change in healthcare, Obama appeals more to Congress because they are persuaded by the law and how the country is run. Pathos wouldn't change Congress' ideas about healthcare because emotions will not dictate their decisions.

President Obama talks about the health care problem which started during President Roosevelt's term. And now, Obama is "determined to be the last" president to take up the cause of healthcare (par. 1). He explains that now support comes from hospitals, even the hospitals who were against the healthcare reform before. At this point is his speech, Obama has introduced his major topic and showed that he has support from Americans. The next step he takes is introducing his specific plan of action.

Obama explains his three main points that cover why the American people need help with their healthcare, and how the government can help them at low costs. He not only includes the American people, but also Congress and their own healthcare plans. Obama explains that if you have health insurance already, you will not need to change your coverage. However if you need health insurance, you can find affordable coverage. Then he links it all together and why it matters. "[It] makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives." (par. 11)

Finally, President Obama says that he will not waste any time with anyone who doesn't want to improve healthcare and he explains why. "Everyone... knows what will happen if we do nothing... More families will go bankrupt... More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result." (par. 16) Obama connects the issue of his healthcare proposal to what the result will be if action is not taken. President Obama used logos very effectively when he addressed Congress and demonstrated why a change in healthcare needs to take place.

Letter From Liberty Jail

In 1839 Joseph Smith wrote a letter to the church from the depths of Liberty Jail. He was writing to give the body of the church guidance and counsel, but how could he establish ethos from just writing a simple letter? The first two paragraphs of the letter are used very effectively in this pursuit.

In the first sentence Joseph establishes himself as a servant to the the church. He says "Your humble servant [...] prisoner for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the Saints, taken and held by the power of mobocracy, under [an] exterminating reign." The Latter Day Saint reader immediately faces social suicide if they question Joseph's credibility, because at the same time they would be questioning Christ's credibility. He calls himself their humble servant. Of course you are going to respect and listen to the words of someone who is serving you. He also calls himself a prisoner for Christ's sake. The Saints live for Christs sake, and they will likewise give their full attention to someone who says they are suffering for Christ. Joseph establishes ethos by establishing himself as someone that has the exact same beliefs as the Saints in Nauvoo. It is much the same reason as why someone listens to their parents. For the most part, parents have the same thinking, rationale, and beliefs as their children.

Joseph goes on to shower the Saints with blessings like knowledge and faith. It is clear that he only wants what is best for the fledgling church, and at this point a reader cannot deny that. The reader (with or without knowing it) is probably in full awe of Joseph's authoritative figure. It is hard to disrespect someone that is giving you candy bars. By bestowing blessing upon the Saints he is simultaneously earning their confidence and trust.

In the second paragraph Joseph describes his dire situation. He says "we have been taken prisoners charged falsely with every kind of evil, and thrown into prison, enclosed with strong walls, surrounded with a strong wall." He goes on to compare the jail guard to the devil. By doing this he establishes the wickedness of the opposing party. It makes the reader think it would be a sin to support them. By pointing out that he has been falsely charged, it makes it seem okay for the reader to be on Joseph's side. They might not want to be on his side however, if he had been rightly charged for a real crime. This further establishes his "good guy" ethos.

In the end however, Joseph would most like have good ethos no matter what. First of all, he is the prophet, and he is writing to people who believe that. He is in good standing among the Saints which gives him authority and influence. This letter catalyzes the building of his ethos by identifying with the reader, and establishing an authoritative voice that the Saints listen to.

Heathcare

I read President Obama's "Now is the Time to Deliver on Healthcare" speech to Congress proposing his plan on Health Care.

President Obama has been talking about health care all throughout his presidental campain and now, as President. Presenting his ideas about health care need to be brought out at the right time. At a time when Americans want to listen to what he wants to say. Obama uses kairos in this particular speech by specifically stating why now is the time for action and for implimenting his health care proposal. Obama says, "Now is the season for action... Now is the time to deliver on health care". (par. 6)

According the the life cycle of a rhetorical situation, Obama is just leaving the origin stage. Some Americans are still becoming more aware of what his health care plan is and what their personal benifits would be.

A large majority of Americans, however, are aware of Obama's proposal and have formed their own oppinions about it. This is the beginnings of the maturity stage. Obama is talking to Congress and therefore, the discussing and deciding process is going on. A decision will soon be reached determining whether Obama's health care plan should be implimented. Because this is the most critical moment of debate, it is very important that Obama proves his point and takes advantage of the opportunites he has to convince Congress and the American people.

Obama includes himself with congress by using words like "we" and "us". He combines the Democrates and the Republicans together and shows how his health care program will help everyone.

Obama explains that this is the time to change health care because if we don't fix it now, there will be no possible way to compromise. He futher explains that this has been a long-time problem that we need to fix and make better for the future.

By using the time Obama has to speak and persuade Congress, he is using kairos to his advantage and seizing the moment. Obama understands that he needs the Congress to approve of his plan for action to take place. At this critical or maturity stage, it is very important that he uses the time effectively before a decision is reached and the cycle moves to deterioration and disintegration.

Pearl Harbor

In his famous address, FDR said, "Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." However, this quote may not be quite as sincere as it seems at first.

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor a majority of Americans wanted to stay out of World War Two. It is largely believed that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in the minority wanting to enter the conflict, however, if he had just entered the war with no crowning incentice he would've lost a huge amount of his public support. Pearl Harbor gave FDR his chance. The very next day he delivered a famous address to the nation in front of a joint session of Congress. Using poweful lagnuage, he rallied tremendous support for entering World War Two, which he did. One day earlier and this speech would have been laughed at. This was the opportunity to go to the war because the citizenry was mad. Their home had just been attacked, and Americans don't stand for that. It would not have been possibly for FDR to rally his country to war if they didn't have Pearl Harbor fresh in their heads. They wanted to get even with the Axis Powers.

FDR's language also took advantage of the moment. By adding the word "yesterday" at the beginning of his speech he adds a tremendous sense of urgency. He uses the words "suddenly" and "deliberately" to help infuriate American citizens. If Japan acted suddenly and deliberately, shouldn't the U.S. respond in the same manner?

President Roosevelt took advantage of the opportune moment. He appealed to the right people at the right time, in the right place. Although a huge majority of American's believed in isolationism before the Japanese attack, Roosevelt succesfully engaged the moment to turn the tide of American opinion. Americans were also outraged that the Japanese had attacked their homeland; it wasn't some distant war that nobody cared about anymore. FDR harnessed the energy released by the attack and infused it into the American population. They were enraged and wanted to do something about it. The president brilliantly used Pearl Harbor as his backdoor into World War Two.

The Americans had been attacked, they had been attacked in their homeland, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt seized the opprtune moment.

Glenn Beck on Congress and Corruption

On September 17, 2009, the Senate voted against (52-43) the S.Amdt 2410 to H.R. 3288 which is to limit the use of funds for the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport. Now this airport has some amazing features to it. As Glenn Beck said on his September 17th show, "It's beautiful — according to published reports it's got a $7 million air traffic control tower, a $14 million hangar and an $18 million state-of-the-art runway." (par. 7)

Now, one would expect there to be heavy traffic for this AMAZING airport, but sadly there are, according to Beck, some problems with this high-tech airport. First, there are only three flights a day to Washington, D.C. Second, only a total of 6,700 passengers are served a year. And lastly, "the airport has received over $150 million in taxpayer funding and then another $800,000 in stimulus money to repave an 'alternate runway.'" (par. 9)

As you know, the US, and other parts are the world, are currently going through an economical crisis. Now Glenn Beck might be a bit strong in his choice of words, but his thoughts still provoke others to become upset with what the Senate has decided on regarding this proposed amendment. "We aren't the richest nation in the world. We just spent the most money.

"But there is no more money. If you understand that, wouldn't it be a no-brainer to not spend $20 million a year on an airport only one dirt-bag [John Murtha] uses to go to Washington, D.C., for his dirt-bag deals?" (par. 12)

In his address, Beck presents his idea of "fifty-six 're-founders' to stand up to the corruption and the special interests in [their] own party. Stand up to what Washington, D.C. has become." (par. 5)

Glenn Beck addresses this issue of political corruption at the "right" time. His message was delivered after Senate decided on it's vote. By showing multiple,recent examples of how corruption is taking place in Washington, he is able to make a very convincing argument, especially through his use of kairos by delivering his message at the "right" time.

The second part of Kairos includes addressing an issue to the "right" people. Glenn Beck calls to the citizens of the United States of America. He urges them to take the necessary steps to remove those who cause corruption and replace them with "56 brave, good, decent human beings." (par. 5) He speaks to those who are in the sound of his voice, those who are probably interested in current issues and his thoughts. This is a prime group that will mostly like heed his words. Again, by using kairos, Beck is able to have an even stronger argument by exercising more than one aspect of kairos.

Lastly, kairos includes making an argument in the "right circumstance." According to the life cycle of a rhetorical situation, the debate for the proposed amendment is in the disintegration phase because "the process of change becomes practically irreversible. Decisions have been made and put into action. Many groups have moved on to other issues." (W & R, p. 47, par. 4) However, the issue Glenn Beck brings up (that there is corruption in our government) is at the deterioration stage. "The prime moment for influencing the opinion of decision makers has passed, and a solution may be in the early stages of implementation. Positions on the issues are well established." (W & R, p. 47, par. 3) One can argue that most people already have made an opinion on corruption. Additionally, Beck presents this issue after President Obama took office. He then takes advantage of this issue being in the deterioration stage since many of his listeners, who are mostly conservative, did not support Obama's candidacy. This then opens an opportunity for listeners to take charge and try to create this change in democracy that Beck and others want to see. Once more Beck tactfully uses kairos to make an effective argument, that might just one day help to amend the American government that the citizens are affected by.