JKF complex sentences and subordinate clauses
Tuesday February 24th 2009, 4:30 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
1 Comment

Bolded sentences are complex sentences and the parts of the sentences witht the strike through are subordinate clauses.

  Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.    1
  The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. 2
  We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3
  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4
  This much we pledge—and more. 5
  To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. 6
  To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. 7
  To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. 8
  To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house. 9
  To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run. 10
  Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. 11
  We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. 12
  But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind’s final war. 13
  So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. 14
  Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. 15
  Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations. 16
  Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce. 17
  Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to “undo the heavy burdens … and to let the oppressed go free.” 18
  And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved. 19
  All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin. 20
  In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe. 21
  Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, “rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation”—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. 22
  Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort? 23
  In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. 24
  And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. 25
  My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. 26
  Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own. 27


JFK speach
Monday February 23rd 2009, 9:19 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments?

JFK presents a powerful speach at the inaugural adress on January 20,1961. He uses many literary devices as well as the rhetorical triangle throughout his speach. The audience of the speach is all of American citezens and lots of others from other countries as well. This speach was during the Cold War. America longed for security. The feeling of paranoa swept the nation everyday as people worried whether the world would be lost in an atomic battle. Kennedy states, “Let us not negotiate out of fear, but let us fear not to negotiate.” This gives the audience a sense of security and strength in nthe current dilema between Russia and the U.S.

   America is looking for change. Kennedy promises this in saying, “All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1000 days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even in our lifetime on this planet, but let us begin.” This gives the audience assurance that there will be change. Kennedy is honest in saying that this change wont happen right way which gives the audience a sense of trust for Kennedy.

  To sum up his speach, Kennedy apeals to pathos. He says, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Fellow citezens of the world, ask no what AMerica will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” This shows the world that America isn’t out to compete and that we are out to work together. This is like an offering of peace. Which leaves the audience trusting Kennedy and blown away by his successful speach.

Overall JFK’s speach had a very powerful tone. He did an excellent job in all three aspects: logos, ethos, and pathos. He related to the audience and got on their level.

 



Ford Fusion Print Ad
Thursday February 12th 2009, 4:05 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments?

   

My ad is about the Ford Fusion. It is a simple picture of a car with writing all around it talking about the features. On the top it says, “Some cars have great ads. This ad has a great car.” This ad is very clever in the sense that it is a very simple peice of paper with writing that looks like handwriting all over it. It has the image of a scratch peice of paper someone took and brainstormed ideas for an advertisement on. It is made to look like not such a great ad, more simple because of the title, “Some cars have great ads. This ad has a great car.” Ironically because of the cleverness of the article as a whole it turns out that this very ad is a great ad. The persona is one that makes the ad as a whole look like a rough draft someone just drew up. The prupose is to sell the car and to show that it is a great car. The audience is anyone looking to buy a safe, affordable, and reliable car. The argument was that the car is so great that there is no need for a great ad.



Response to “Just Asking”
Wednesday February 11th 2009, 7:16 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
1 Comment

     In his article, Just Asking, David Foster Wallace ingeniously makes many powerful points in a peice made completely out of questions. By asking these questions he is not just giving the audience facts and leaving them just to be read, he asks questions that makes the audience think. Instead of writing an artlicle of his own opinions and findings, Wallace goes in deeper by asking controversial questions. Furthermore, these questions are so well structured that it not only makes the audience think about just that question, but it leads to a whole new train of thought. For example when Wallace asks, “…despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?” I not only think of this question but other questions pop into my head. Can we have complete security and still live in the American Dream? In addition to this, he questions the the concept of death; that maybe death is the cost to bring out true patriotism in many Americans. Wallace structures this article in such a way that he leaves the thinking to the audience. He doesn’t express the way he feels, but almost “leads the audience on.” He lets the audience figure out the point he is trying to get across.



Princess Diana Articles
Sunday February 08th 2009, 6:11 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments?

BBC article

The BBC article differs from the other articles in the sense that it is just straight fact. It appeals to ethos in that BBC is a respectable news source and logos in that it gives facts and details about the event. THe subject is the death of princess Diana. The audience is obviously viewers of the BBC news. The speaker is whoever is presenting the news. The relationship between the subject, audience, and speaker is arranged in a way that the speaker only gives straight fact so that there is no bias opinion whatsoever because of the large audience.

Queen Elizebeth’s Televised Speech

In this speech the speaker is Queen Elizebeth. THe audience are those who were watching T.V. and those who cared for Princess Diana. The subject is the death of Princess Diana. Unlike the BBC news report this speech immediately appeals to pathos in the fact that Queen Elizebeth is much more emotional and sensitive on the subject. She doesn’t talk about much fact, just on how she feels and what others feel.

Earl Spencer’s Euology

In this speech the speaker is Earl Spencer, Diana’s brother. THe audience is family and friends of Princess Diana and anyone else at her funeral. THe subject is the death of Princess Diana and all the good things about her life. This speech is different from the others because in this one the main audience are all those who are mourning over her death and people who cared for her deeply so he can be more open and honest with the way he feels. This speech also applies mainly to pathos and some ethos as well.

Wikipedia Entry

In this article the speaker is whoever wrote the wikipedia article. THe audience are those interested in Princess Diana or the death of Princess Diana. The subject is the death and the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana. Like the BBC report this article is also very factual, however it does appeal more to pathos than the BBC report. In my case it does not appeal significantly to ethos because wikipedia is not known as a very reliable source.



“We Can Afford to Give Parents a Break”
Sunday February 08th 2009, 5:22 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments?

In Jody Heyman’s article she uses many methods of development throughout her writing. I concluded that out of all the methods of development she used comare and contrast, exemplification, and cause and affect. Out of all these methods Heyman’s arguments are very strong in comarison and contrast as she weighs out the differences between the United States and other nations when it comes to the economy and helping mothers. For example, in the second paragraph she states that out of 168 countries the U.S. is one of the four that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave. Comaprison and Contrast are very strong throughout her entire essay. Another method that is very strong throughout Heyman’s argument is emplification. While comparing, she uses many examples in making her point stronger and clearer to the reader. Last, the author uses cause and affect. THere are many times throughout her article that Heyman enhances her argument by using cause and affect. For example in the sixth paragraph the author shows that businesses don’t want to have to compete with other businesses. The affect of this is that they cut down on any unnecessary expences such as maternity leave. Heyman makes her point very clear throughout her article. She does an excellent job in using methods of development



Political Cartoon
Wednesday February 04th 2009, 8:05 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments?

In this cartoon the speaker is trying to portray that the job ahead of Barak Obama is a big one and it will take a long time to deal with. The audience is all the United States population.  The context is a giant man, representing recession, sitting on the white house waiting for President Obama. He states that he will be, “sticking around for a while,” meaning that the recession will take a long while to deal with. In it’s a whole it shows that dealing with the recession is a huge job waiting for President Obama and it won’t be gone right away. The audience all share common knowledge that our country is in a recession. The speaker assumes that everyone knows that in swearing in the president, Obama is taking on a huge role and a lot of pressure. The author uses the rhetorical triangle by illustrating a subject that not only he and his audience knows about, but are experiencing. The author apeals to pathos in the fact that he uses sarcasm, almost humor, in the fact that the recession the president is dealing with is ,”the elephant in the room.” He also apeals to logos by illustrating these metaphors so well in explaining the job of the president.