Top 100 Speeches

To merely pass on interesting things that other people are saying: Disconnect mentions Martin Luther King’s “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top” speech and passes on American Rhetoric’s Top 100 speeches.

I’ve been listening/watching several (a little MLK, a little JFK, Elizabeth Glaser, etc). The textual transcripts are available as well, but I have to admit that I haven’t read any on this site. I listen, I watch, but I haven’t sat here and read the speeches.

I suppose it’s that I’m not old enough to have experienced the majority of these first hand. I have to rely on the captured media to hear it and experience it, and not as a mere cognitive understanding. While I can read the text and get a feeling from the words, I like hearing the delivery of a speech. Speeches are so dependent on the speech giver and their ability to convey passion, care, personality, elegance, etc etc. I like to experience to speech giver as much as the speech.

Presidential Race . . . and Alcohol

If I didn’t see this story with my own eyes, I’d believe it came out of The Onion, but sometimes we actually manage to recognize ridiculousness in real life without the help of satire: CNN has a head start on predicting our 44th President.

According to the logic behind a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, “a voter’s drinking preferences may also reveal their political preferences.” Check out the short article for more details.

On a side note, I’m surprised CNN dismantled the comments feature for this story. I had loaded the page earlier in the day, and the comments at the top of the page were humorously negative. I refreshed the page just now, and they’ve all disappeared (before I actually read all of them. Darn). I guess CNN got the point.

New Country, New Flag

Today, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia — the two remaining states of what was once Yugoslavia. Although secession has been expected, this declaration may turn less than pretty as Serbia and Russia promise to deny acknowledgment of the new country.

As I was reading up on the happenings, I came across an article written a week ago on Kosovo’s plan to adopt a new flag. Until now, every celebration and every funeral was marked with the Albanian flag — a rich red background with a black two-headed eagle. Albanians far and near, in the motherland (Albania) or not, have identified with that flag and those colors.

What happens now as a new country tries to identify itself? The writers at The Christian Science Monitor have an idea. See this article, “With Independence Looming, Kosovo to Pick New Flag,” by Andrew Wander for more info. I’ll be very curious to see what happens. . . .

Crack vs. Powder

A recent story by the Associated Press, “Crack-vs.-powder disparity is questioned,” documents attempts to equalize punishment associated with illegal drug use. Last month, federal sentencing guidelines were adjusted for crack offenses, which had formerly upheld penalties that were 100x more severe than than those related to powdered cocaine. The differences in the effects of the drug — based on its form and therefore its type of ingestion — had apparently been exaggerated.

And the reason? Some seem to believe racisim:

Many defense lawyers and civil rights advocates say the lopsided perception of crack versus cocaine is rooted in racism. Four out of every five crack defendants are black, while most powdered-cocaine defendants are white.

The article continues by outlining how the use of crack and powdered cocaine came to fall along racial lines — and it’s quite an interesting read. In the end, though, I wonder at the nuances of this story. How could the case have been made that the ingestion of the same drug could have such wildly different results? Or could it be, as alluded to in the quotation above, that lawmakers only needed to see the statistics and demographics to believe one type is worse than the other?

The initial law was written in 1986. I wonder what it would take to make the same case today, 20 years later.

What a piece of . . .

When the BBC writes, “Al Gore’s [Nobel Prize] acceptance speech was a powerful piece of rhetoric,” is there an underlying political critique happening? We’re all aware that popular use of the word “rhetoric” doesn’t always line up with scholarly connotations. Shocking, I know. Does it mean something, though, that they didn’t tag it as a “powerful speech” or “powerful message”? How is the article contextualizing the speech by calling it a “piece of rhetoric”? (click here for the full speech)

Strange I didn't bring up the military-industrial complex that accounts for half of our nation's oil consumption . . .

“Mr. Gore’s speech,” the article says, “was a rhetorical tour de force.” Under the section heading “Rhetorical Power,” there is, however, only an implicit rhetorical analysis: “The former vice-president painted a gloomy picture of the climate impacts that might lie ahead. But he was more upbeat in his assessment that carbon emissions could be tackled.”

Emotional roller-coaster = rhetorically effective? Gore’s speech is ripe for rhetorical analysis . . . thoughts anyone?

Rhetoric at War

If you’re like me, you probably enjoying analyzing and dissecting the rhetoric of politicians, press secretaries, and military officials. And it’s fun too, right? When we see a suit or uniform behind a podium justifying war in diplomatic fashion, our analytic ears and eyes stand at attention. They’re very aware of their own rhetoric (whether they call it that or not) and they’re trained to construct their message carefully, so it’s fun to see what delicately-worded phrases ultimately make their way to the public. But it looks as if the military is expanding their vision of spokespeople to include troops, realizing rhetorical savviness can be as powerful as a bullet–perhaps even more so.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article describing the military’s lastest game plan for the continuing war in Afghanistan. The problem is that “Many U.S. and allied soldiers still arrive in the country well-trained to kill, but not to persuade.” The solution? Teach the soldiers to consider the perspective of locals, whether friend or foe.

The soldiers are being asked to think rhetorically, as displayed by Marine Lt. Col. Christopher Nash, who says, “Think about what the insurgents are trying to tell the populace–that the coalition is the infidel … If the public saw coalition troops patrolling side-by-side with Afghan troops carrying their prayer mats, it might send a powerful message.”

Reminds me of a quote that Montaigne loves to repeat:

Napolean to Fontanes: “Do you know what astounds me most about the world? The impotence of force to establish anything. There are only two powers in the world: the sword and the mind. In the end, the sword is always conquered by the mind.”