I think I've mentioned my first English assignment. A rhetorical essay that analyzes immediate and remote audiences, purposes, and contexts, then the types of appeal the author uses to get the message across. Thrown into the mix are other persuasive strategies as appropriate, whatever that means. As before, I'm going to do some of my free-writing here, just cause I can.

So, I thought about it over the weekend. See, we are sposed to use an essay out of the liberal textbook required for the class, but nothing in it struck a chord with me. Oh, I agree with most of what they say, most, but nothing really inspired me. There is even a chapter from Michael Moore's book, Stupid White Men, but even that didn't appear too promising.

So, I emailed the professor and asked him if my subject matter could be the recent inaugural speech. I was sure THAT wouldn't fly, seems too easy. Well, he approved it, so I'm off with the free writing. This may take up more time than I have to devote to this, cause although I didn't read the speech before asking, I had a feeling there would be some interesting subtleties to point out.

Oh yeah, lots of stuff to rant and rave about. So, after doing my follow-up work for physiology, I broke out the speech and read it again for the second time, the first being this morning before class. So, here's what I've come up with.

The remote purpose will be the most interesting to work on, although I do have to talk about the audience and context, I'll deal with that later. Obviously with my mindset the purpose is going to be the bulk of my paper. Overall his purpose was to bring out his international agenda. He alludes to the domestic front, but most of it is rousing stuff, or what is supposed to be rousing, about freedom in the world, and how tyrants need to look out, cause 'here come de judge!!'

it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny

This is all well and good, except it is obvious we still aren't going to do anything about those helpless people dying by the thousands in and around Sudan.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.

Here he's telling those in America that have voiced 'concern' over going into Iraq, that we have been doing this all along. Just because our people are dying doesn't mean we should stop. And, regardless of what is a major opinion here, that being we shouldn't be going as far as we have, we are going to continue whether you like it or not, because we can. He even has the nerve to bring 9/11 into the mix, again. I guess he feels it's ok because, even though it may not be completely right, nobody is complaining TOO much about it. He also has the gall to mention the tsunami disaster....

We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

My last comments until later, because I'll have to go to class soon, is his subtle nudge for getting rid of his not-so pet programs.....

In America’s ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance—preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

He disguises his distaste for these programs - Homestead, Social Security, and GI Bill - with the notion that they aren't necessary any longer. He brings up 'independence' as his reasoning, and that dealing with these issues on an individual basis are 'challenges of life in a free society'. In my opinion, a 'free society' to him is the freedom of some to take advantage of others, even when their retirement plans are the ultimate victims. There are some in this world that actually believe if there are people who aren't capable of adequately planning for their own retirement, they are fucked, and it's nobody's responsibility but their own. This is true, to a certain degree. These people lump those that are capable but too ignorant, with those that are actually incapable of making the kinds of sound decisions necessary to adequately provide for themselves. It is a basic human function to help those in need. Sometimes those that are in need, require assistance in providing for their own old age. We are incapable of discerning who the fuck-ups are that don't deserve the help from the people that actually do, so the fuck-ups basically a free ride. It is these 'fuck-ups' that some would give their just rewards, even if it means fucking with people that don't deserve to be left to themselves.

Ok, I'm getting off on a tangent here. Time to go get ready for my next class.....