Analysis Of Two Bush Speeches - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1528 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/10/31 Category Society Essay Level High school Topics: Gulf War Essay Did you like this example? Presidents play a critical role when influencing the public through the use of rhetoric. Through only words often within a speech a president can have an everlasting impact on society and the public. Rhetoric, and how its used, is arguably one of the most powerful and unique dynamics of a presidency. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Analysis Of Two Bush Speeches" essay for you Create order Presidential rhetoric is so powerful that it can even incite war and rationalize its indispensability. For decades presidents have been using their platform to push their personal political agendas within their rhetoric especially within war rhetoric. So, can presidents incite war through rhetoric solely? I argue, yes, that presidents can make war seem inevitable and incite war through their rhetoric alone. A resounding depiction of this use of rhetoric is found when looking at George H. W. Bushs rhetoric in 1990 1991 in regard to The Gulf War. George H. W. Bush stimulates, through rhetoric, the notion that The Gulf War (also known as Operation Desert Storm) was necessary. Consistent themes are found within presidential speeches that shape war rhetoric. Common themes are demonization of the opposition, human rights concerns, and defeating aggression. All of the themes mentioned are illustrated within Bushs rhetoric preceding and during The Gulf War. To illuminate these rhetorical t hemes and argue the incitation of war by George H. W. Bush I will be analyzing two of his speeches: Address on Iraqs Invasion of Kuwait and Announcing War on Iraq. Literature Review   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   War rhetoric, according to Jamieson and Campbell, means the rhetoric by which presidents seek to justify to Congress and to the citizenry their exercise of war powers. Presidential war rhetoric intends to launch invasions, direct invasions, suffice stationing troops, and sell the war. Its imperative to sell the war so that people will fight it and people will fund it. Presidential power, especially war power, has expanded and increased with every decade in respect to rhetoric. Executive war powers have been broadened over time by their exercise, by congressional complicity, and by Supreme Court sanction (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). The president can overstep his assumed constitutional powers and rights through the use of rhetoric due to the blurred lines of what the president can and cant do. Rhetoric can subdue what might seem unconstitutional as far as influencing the nation or pushing a personal agenda. War rhetoric is a constant power struggle betwe en the President and Congress mediated by The Supreme Court. Presidential war rhetoric is related to the ongoing struggle between the president and Congress, refereed by the courts, over what the Constitution permits the president to do (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). Presidential entitlements have been into argument because article 1 of the Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare War, . to raise and support Armies, . provide and maintain a Navy, . [and] make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces, whereas article 2 defines the president as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States. (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). The democratic solution to war includes 2 steps: 1) President must request or recommend declaration of war; 2) Congress must declare war through resolution, statute, or declaration of war. The argument of the President being able to take advantage of and exploit their power of war is validated through the evidence of only five officially declared wars. According to Campbell and Jamieson, major military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq have been carried out without declarations of war, and more than one hundred military ventures involving combat troops have been conducted without any form of congressional authorization. The majority of American wars have been enacted without statutory authorization, a resolution of support, or a declaration of war (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). It is often argued whether or not a presidents call to war is appropriately in the defense of our nation or an overstep of the nations military capabilities. It is often in question if a presidential decision to go to war is a hasty or responsive decision, rather than a well thought out one. The founders hoped that the rhetorical process implied by the Constitution would ensure that a decision to wage war would be arrived at thoughtfully, not rashly or emotionally (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). While it is often seen that a president is overstepping his congressional duties by inciting war, it is still a frequent occurrence that is provoked through rhetoric. Despite the change from former to subsequent reasoning of military action, Campbell and Jamieson argue that presidential war rhetoric throughout U.S. history manifests five pivotal characteristics: 1) every element in it proclaims that the momentous decision to resort to force is deliberate, the product of thoughtful consideration; 2) forceful intervention is justified through a chronicle or narrative from which argumentative claims are drawn; 3) the audience is exhorted to unanimity of purpose and total commitment; 4) the rhetoric not only justifies the use of force, but also seeks to legitimize presidential assumption of the extraordinary powers of the commander in chief; and, as a function of these other characteristics, 5) strategic misrepresentations play an unusually significant role in its appeals (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). It is often found that by including these characteristics in their speeches, the President is better able to legitimatize his intentions in the interes t of the constitutional right to defend the nation. Within war rhetoric it is common for the President to greet his rational deliberation (a constitutional obligation) with recommending Congress to declare war or to authorize the introduction of armed forces (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). This thoughtful deliberation usually is when the President states that he has talked to international leaders, allies, all of the government, etc. before speaking on the matter. Perhaps one of the most prominent and effective characteristics of war rhetoric is the use of narratives. Narratives are typically what allow the media to further the argument of war and influence the public. The use of narratives allows the President to dramatize and simplify the situation at hand so that war seems inevitable. Narratives often explore the idea of how alternatives might be possible but due to the [dramatic] situation or threat at hand an immediate response is undoubtedly necessary. The narrative typically reframes the conflict as aggression by the enemy, according to Jamieson and Campbell, which legitimizes presidential initiatives as actions to defend the nation. This type of narrative results in a call to action to support the decision to wage war. An extended narrative is often seen in war rhetoric, where the President structures the argument of war by exhausting national values to frame the opposition as a threat to the nation and civilization. War rhetoric narratives often characterizes America as innocent and in favor of good, desiring to help others or taking action in the best interest of others. Narratives tend to differ between presidents based on intentions and motives but remains an essential characteristic of war rhetoric. Following narratives is the third characteristic of presidential war rhetoric that Campbell and Jamieson discuss, exhortation to unified action. It is often found within presidential speeches that incite war elements of unification. This unification element is in large part due to framing the intent behind war being in the best interest of humanity and civilization as a whole. The concept of unification comes with the assumed [anticipative] conclusion that right will prevail (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). This characteristic will often appear as a president reminding the audience to put parties aside and using unifying terms and phrases like we and my fellow Americans while playing on national values. Exhortation to unified action speaks to the values Americans want to see in themselves and suggests values are threatened. The fourth characteristic that Campbell and Jamieson designate as a necessary element of war rhetoric is investiture as commander in chief. Ultimately, war rhetoric is a rhetoric of investiture (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013) meaning that it is an [arguably] excusable time to expand power as a president and justify why. The president rationalizes this as the time to exercise his right to play the role of Commander in Chief due to the threat of American values and the community. While the original intent of the role Commander in Chief was to repel attack, presidential innovations have created precedents that presidents have used to claim expanded executive war powers (C ampbell and Jamieson, 2013). Another complex modification of this characteristic is the role Congress now plays with the president in waging war. The intent of the Constitution was that the president would go to Congress to request authorization to act as commander in chief, but now the president assumes the role and then asks for congressional ratification (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013). The characteristic that plays a very significant role in war rhetoric is strategic misrepresentation. Strategic misrepresentation is a very dominant trend within Bushs war rhetoric, which will be explored further in this paper. War rhetoric is typically intended to incite immediate action demanding immediate support. This urgent action is attainable through the use of strategic misrepresentation, where the president uses rhetoric to misrepresent the events described in ways strategically related to stifle dissent and unify the nation (Campbell and Jamieson, 2013).

Technology is all Around Our Daily Lives - 625 Words

Technology is all around us when we look to our daily routine and we count all the technology tools that we use in one day, we will realize how just important technology is. We can’t live for one day with out using cell phones, watching T.V, driving cars, computers or any electrical machines. In fact day after day depending on technology increases weather through communication, transportation or search for any information. Also we use technology for entertainment, education and science. Due to technology we have been able to reach the surface of the moon and the bottom of the ocean thanks to the technology revolution, and because of the importance of technology most of the big companies create sections for research and development. It influences minds in good and bad ways, and it allows people to share information which they would other wise not be able to share. Technology plays an important role in most areas of life, in other words, they solve most of the problems of human beings, the aim of the importance of technology to make life easier for humans. Using the technology has helped to expand the perception of a person, and the development of culture, made him following up well to events all over the world without restriction or excuse prevents him from what is happening outside the range in which the person lives. It also has the ability to bring people closer, especially students who are studying outside their home countries, they can to talk to their families andShow MoreRelatedThe Importance Of Technology972 Words   |  4 PagesThe advancement in technology has significantly altered our daily lives. As generations passed, it is remarkable in seeing how technology has drastically changed as well as our behavior towards it. Globally, we are gaining many achievements through it and are increasingly exposed to the immense variety of electronics. Therefore, we have utilized our technology more than ever before. From this effect, it has caused both positive and negative aspects in our lives. We have discovered that a myriad ofRead MoreDoes Social Networking Have A Positive And Or Negative Affect On Individuals?942 Words   |  4 Pagesindividuals are able to receive information about what is currently happening around the world, or even in their own town. Individuals are not only able to receive information within seconds, but inform others about what is going on in their daily lives as well as promoting their businesses. Lastly, social networking is being used for building relationships, because individuals are now able to communicate with one another from all over the globe. This results to new relationships being formed whether it’sRead MoreEssay about Overuse of Technology1373 Words   |  6 PagesIt seems that everyone needs some help from technology on a daily basis. It both surrounds and intrigues us. Technology can be helpful, fun, and entertaining. Much of technology is created to assist with making projects faster or daily tasks more efficient. However, the collaboration of technologies i n our lives has a few negative effects and I think we need to scale back a bit on our use of these much adored technologies. The over-use of technology is creating an impatient society and it is alsoRead MoreFahrenheit 451 And Our Society1500 Words   |  6 Pages What would our world be like if technology completely ruled our lives? Is it not what our lives are like now? In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Guy Montag lives in a dystopian society where books are burned and lives are ruled by technology. Here, technology rules how people act, think, and spend their time. Technology is basically a distraction from the real problems of society. People forget how to think for themselves and they become conformists. Technology has made the society inRead MoreTechnology and Face to Face Interaction Essay1116 Words   |  5 Pagesworld technology has taken over and face to face talk has diminished over time. Communication today is from several different forms of technology. First and foremost many people have discussions via the computer or some type of voice mail that can be setup. Using fax machines is another great way new technology has taken over face to face discussions. Last is the very popular cellular telephone. Using this new technology face to face communication has become less attractive. With new technology faceRead MoreTechnology Has Changed Our Lives1204 Words   |  5 PagesTechnology throughout the years has consistently changed the way students, professionals, families, friends, etc. form and carry out relationships with one another. Technology originally started out as a tool to gain information or something as simple as communicating in a more efficient way. Over time technology has changed the way we go about our daily lives as well as who we are as an individual, losing our sense of self perception through the loss of daily personal interactions with individualsRead MoreHuman Interaction: Plugged or Unplugged Essay1168 Words   |  5 PagesWe live in a digital age. It is a part of most people’s daily lives. We use our electronics to wake us up, and then inform us of our daily schedule, news, e-mail, stock portfolios, and various other information throughout our day on various devices, including phone calls. For most of us, this is a daily routine, a s the generations before who listened to the town crier or local gossip for their news, or we progressed to reading newspapers or books, to gathering around the radio for information, onRead MoreThe Negative Effects Of Technology854 Words   |  4 Pagesand access to Google. We, as a modern tech savvy society, must be aware and wise when using technology and the internet since nowadays dangers are everywhere. As a result, society has become overly dependent with using technology within their daily lives, so much that it affects children, can lead to online dangers, and creates unnecessary obsession among users. First of all, excessive exposure to technology can be detrimental to children. Some people may say that children play and watch educationalRead MoreTechnology And Its Effect On Technology957 Words   |  4 PagesAre we becoming way too dependent on technology and allowing it to take over our lives? The majority of people own at least one or more of these devices: a computer, laptop, tablet, or a cell phone. So many people seem unable to function through their daily routine without having access to some form of technology device. I’m willing to bet that you have at least two of these devices in your home, too. Now, stop and think about how often we use technology devices throughout the day. As a result ofRead MoreTechnology : The Impact Of Technology And Its Impact On The Future905 Words   |  4 Pagesan era of advanced technology, where every part of our daily lives is impacted by it. Recently we have found ourselves heavily dependent on the use technology and our needs an d demands for more keep rising. The more advanced it becomes, the more it seems to have control over our lives. While it is impossible to explore how each new advanced technology has impacted our lives and how it will impact the future, it continues to affect our environment, people and society. Technology by its self is not

A Solution to the Population Problem free essay sample

Increasing importance has been placed upon population and population growth over the course of the past few centuries. Scientists are frenetically searching for the solution to this issue, and their outcomes are bleak. They are telling the world that if population growth does not slow, the earth will swell to a capacity too large to sustain itself and the conclusion will be apocalyptic. Explanations are numerous, however viable solutions are difficult to find. Adherents to the Malthusian theory, such as Garrett Hardin, author of the article There Is No Global Population Problem, believe that this extreme growth in population will hinder economic development, therefore the industrialized nations must fight to control the population boom. Others, including those supporting the demographic transition theory, such as Gerard Piel, author of Worldwide Development or Population Explosion: Our Choice, claim that the opposite is happening; economic development is limiting population growth and if every country is raised up to a level of economic stability population rates will decrease. Although both articles raise good points and offer up possible solutions, the demographic transition theory’s solution, as characterized by Piel’s article, is a more effective way to slow population growth. Piel’s article outlines the population problem and solution, yet it neglects to analyze the real cause. The consumption rates of a few countries are creating poverty, hunger, and overpopulation in many countries throughout the world. If this issue continues to be ignored, even if Piel’s solution strategies are implemented, the world will reach carrying capacity and our worst prognostics will come true. In 1798 the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he deduced, â€Å"Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometric ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetic ratio. † (Piel 1995 Pg. 44) His claim was that there would be a point in time where the world’s resources would no longer be able to support the population and the world would be reduced to â€Å"wars of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague. † (Malthus 1798 Pg. 49) Hardin’s article supports the Malthusian point of view. He believes that there is indeed a population problem, and there are three basic things which can be done to solve the problem; deglobalize the issue, bring immigration to a halt and use â€Å"mutual coercion† to reduce birth rates. Hardin’s most important claim is that the population problem is not truly a â€Å"global† problem; instead it is a widespread problem that is mistaken for something global. Instead of uniting to solve the problem, each individual government should work separately to find the best solution for themselves, taking into account their own customs and ideals. To illustrate this point Hardin makes an example of China, stating that their production groups are a good example of a government tailoring a population reduction program to their own culture. â€Å"Chinese traditions and cultural ideals make it easier to put the good of the group ahead of individual desires. † (Hardin 1989 Pg. 48) The government, realizing that this cultural fact could be used to â€Å"shame† families into aborting children when it was not their turn to bear them, capitalized on this and successfully found their own solution to population growth. Hardin commends this action, and suggests that the United States do something similar, focusing on monetary rewards for avoiding pregnancy, because this is the solution that would work in our culture. By implementing this method of â€Å"mutual coercion† he feels that birthrates could be brought down to a manageable level. Beyond mutual coercion and deglobalizing the population issue, Hardin asserts we must eliminate immigration. Immigration has increased exponentially from the birth of our country, with legal immigration into the US tripling from 1970 to 1990 (Lawson 2006). With millions of new bodies flowing into the country each year, both legally and illegally, the population has almost no chance of reaching zero growth within our lifetimes. Hardin believes this immigration needs to stop, as we are an advanced nation and â€Å"unrestricted immigration characterizes a new nation; restrictions are the mark of a mature nation. † (Hardin 1989 Pg. 49) The flow of ideas may continue, but with each idea it is not necessary to include a person. Although his three-step plan seems to provide an interesting solution, Hardin’s solution has many flaws. His idea of mutual coercion assumes that every culture is homogenous, and that every person will fit the mold and adapt to the pressures of society. He makes huge cultural generalizations by saying, â€Å"Chinese women are controllable by coercion† (Hardin 1989 Pg. 48), and that Americans would only be coerced by monetary rewards. Because these assumptions lack physical data, they detract from the credibility of his argument. His idea to deglobalize the problem, although practical in the way it divides based on cultural truths, neglects several important issues. Firstly, he fails to compensate for the fact that some world governments will not have the means to fulfill a solution without help from the global community. For example, several African nations, although growing at the fastest rate in the world, will not have government resources to dedicate large sums of money to family planning and birth reduction. Only with monetary and physical help from other members of the global community will it be feasible for these nations to implement a program and help eradicate the population problem. The biggest failure of Hardin’s argument of deglobalization is that he overlooks the real problem behind overpopulation in many of these countries, which is the consumption of resources by the Western world. â€Å"A population that is under 5% of the world’s population generates and consumes 25% of the global GNP† (Porter and Sheppard, 1998 Pg. 136) This rabid consumption by the most well off countries pushes the global south deeper into poverty, which is a root cause of population growth. Although Hardin admits â€Å"Americans are too comfortable to try hard to find an answer. † (Hardin 1989 Pg. 9) he neglects to mention that a good deal of the population problem is caused by the unceasing consumption by our country. If the problem is deglobalized, as Hardin suggests, the Western world will essentially be turning its back on the problem it created. The demographic transition theory, which Gerard Piel supports in his article, offers up a more educated solu tion to the population problem. The theory claims population growth is related to economic achievements; the more advanced countries increase their life spans, enabling more people to mature to the reproductive years, which in turn leads to an increase in population growth. The growth is then kept in check by technological advances, namely birth control, but also by the fact that a smaller family is ideal since agriculture is not the main source of income and more people is no longer more help, just more mouths to feed. Piel describes this viewpoint as â€Å"the fewer, the more—for each† (Piel 1995 Pg. 46) He goes on to suggest that by putting each country through the â€Å"demographic transition†, which is namely achieved by increasing economic development, it is possible to halt the increase in population. He explains, â€Å"we can reach zero-growth population, if we expand the world economy fourfold and share the proceeds equitably. This would bring the poorest 20 percent out of poverty. † (Piel 1995 Pg. 45) In order to defeat poverty, which is both the cause and effect of overpopulation, it is necessary for the industrialized nations bind together to assist the unindustrialized nations in achieving economic prosperity. As an example of the process of demographic transition, Piel, like Hardin, turns to China. However, he accredits the decline in population growth to the revolution that turned China from a politically isolated country into the ninth largest economy in the world. With the doubling of the GDP China saw its literacy rate skyrocket, the life expectancy extend, infant mortality drop drastically and, in 1992, the fertility rate approach the zero-growth rate. (Piel 1995 Pg. 50) This proves that by simply moving into the second stage of the demographic transition, China was able to finally control its population of 1. 2 billion people. Piel’s solution, although far from perfect, does a better job at realizing that this problem truly is global, and that the only way in which a resolution will be found is if the entire world works together. Although he does not blatantly support the ideas of the consumptionist theory, which believes that the consumption distribution supports inequality, which then causes overpopulation, his argument includes lots of support for the idea. Some of his most blatant support is when he discusses the discrepancies of wealth between transnational corporations and the countries that they exploit. He explains, â€Å"The 350 largest nonfinancial transnational corporations [which] account for 30 percent of the output of the world economy†¦ in no small measure, owe their enormous expansion in the past three decades to their advantage in negotiation of the terms under which the developing countries have supplied every commodity—from petroleum to labor. † (Piel 1995 49) He is arguing that the most well off countries continue to prosper at the expense of the resources and work force of some of the world’s poorest countries, furthering poverty, which goes on to affect population and population control. If the world binds together, pools their wealth and propels underprivileged countries through the demographic transition, as Piel suggests, it is possible to begin to slow population growth. But this advancement will be negated if the world does not acknowledge that the consumerist appetite of select countries is a major reason behind the population problem. Western countries believe they can continue to shift the blame from themselves to poor women in poor countries, essentially scapegoating the vulnerable. Eventually, though, it will be realized that this problem can be ignored and hidden, but it will not dissipate until someone faces it. The longer it goes unaddressed, unmentioned by those too embarrassed by their own actions or those whose voices are powerless to make an impact, the worse the global population problem will become. As our population continues to double, triple, quadruple, with no signs of slowing, we need to bind together, implement strategies for population reduction, and face the real issues, no matter how scary, because if not, our worst prognostics will become reality.

Jimi Hendrix Essays (1028 words) - , Term Papers

Jimi Hendrix Jimi Hendrix, the greatest guitarist in rock history, revolutionized the sound of rock. In 1967, the Jimi Hendrix Experience rocked the nation with their first album, Are You Experienced?. Hendrix's life was cut short by the tragedy of drugs in 1970, when he was only twenty seven years old. In these three years the sound of rock changed greatly, and Hendrix's guitar playing was a major influence. Jimi was born in Seattle, Washington on November 27, 1942. As a young boy, whenever the chance came, Jimi would try to play along with his R However, music was not his life long dream. At first, the army was. In the late 1950's, Hendrix enlisted in the 101st Airborne Division. After sustaining a back injury during a jump, he received a medical discharge. After his army career came to an abrupt end, he decided to go into the music field. By this time he had become an accomplished guitarist, and was soon to become known as the greatest guitarist ever (Stambler, pg. 290). However, he did not start out at the top. Jimi started out playing as part of the back-up for small time R It did not take long before his work was in demand with some of the best known artists in the field, such as B.B. King, Ike and Tina Turner, Solomon Burke, Jackie Wilson, Littler Richard, Wilson Pickett, and King Curtis (Clifford, pg. 181). Using the name Jimmy James, he toured with a bunch of R & B shows, including six months as a member of James Brown's Famous Flames (Stambler, pg. 290). At the Cafe Wha! in New York, in 1966, Hendrix decided to try singing. Jimi lucked out when a man by the name of Charles ?Chas? Chandler from Eric Burdon's Animals heard him at the club and thought he was sensational. When Chas heard him again later that year, he talked Jimi into moving to England where he would really get the chance to start his career (Stambler, pg. 290). Along with Chas, Hendrix auditioned some musicians to complete the new Hendrix group. They choose Mitch Mitchell, a fantastic drummer, and Noel Redding, one of England's best guitar and bass players (Stambler, pg. 290). In 1966, at the Olympia in Paris, the Experience debuted. One year later, the Experience was breaking attendance records right and left at European clubs. When the Monkees toured England in 1967, they heard Jimi and liked him. The Monkees asked Hendrix to join them on their tour through the U.S., and Jimi was on his way home (Stambler, pg. 290). "Jimi's erotic stage actions, suggestive lyrics, and guitar- smashing antics..." did not go over well with the Monkees' fans or many adults. Being criticized over and over again forced the Experience to be dropped from the tour (Stambler, pg. 290). This however did not get Hendrix down. By the end of the year, the group was invited to the Monterey Pop Festival. Jimi won a standing ovation for the "...nerve-shattering sounds from the group's nine amplifiers and eighteen speakers, topped by Jimi dousing his guitar with lighter fluid and burning it..." (Stambler, pg. 291). Hendrix became popular overnight, and his shows became standing room only. His stage acts were so wild, Time magazine described it as: "He hopped, twisted and rolled over sideways without missing a twang or a moan. He slung the guitar low over swiveling hips, or raised it to pick the strings with his teeth; he thrust it between his legs and did a bump and grind, crooning: 'oh, baby, come on now, sock it to me.'...For a symbolic finish, he lifted the guitar and flung it against the amplifiers." Time (April 25, 1968). His specialty became the way he used feedback, which up until now was an undesired sound. Using his guitar and the feedback it created, he was able to generate sounds which were used to his advantage in creating his unique style. This style is copied today by modern rock artists; however, this style is duplicated today with the use of special equipment, such as synthesizers. Are You Experienced?, Electric Ladyland, Axis: Bold as Love, and Smash Hits