Category: RCL Blog

Outline on Google Doc

The total casualties suffered in World War I was 34,434,443 from 1914 to 1918 (“Mobilized Strength and Casualty Losses”); the casualties rates for World War II were estimated to be about 15,000,000 battle deaths, 25,000,000 wounded, and 45,000,000 civilian deaths (“Research Starters: Worldwide Deaths in World War II”). While these numbers are incomparable to each other, the strategies and tactics used are. World War I, formerly known as The Great War was supposed to be over before Christmas and be the war to end all wars, but new technology combined with outdated strategies increased the longevity and brutality of the war. The introduction of machine guns, airplanes, artillery, tanks and chemical weapons exposed soldiers to unforeseen obstacles physically, but also mentally (“The World War I Allied Trenches”). These technologies in conjunction with trench warfare created a stalemate between the Allies and the Central Powers. After WWI ended, and the beginning of World War II, new strategies with advanced technology ended the stalemate strategy of WWI and shifted war from the defensive to the offensive. World War II focused less on chemical warfare, but shifted to offensive tactics like blitzkrieg, air assaults, submarine involvement, fast infantry assaults, and nuclear warfare. After the end of WWII, The Cold War erupted, but without any actual fighting, involving an ideological battle between freedom and communism. The Cold War ended without any actual battles, unlike WWI and WWII. This lead to modernity, where there are less actual combat, but the longevity of conflicts have increased. These strategic changes combine to create a paradigm shift from defensive tactics to offensive maneuvers through the end of trench warfare, the mass use of chemicals in warfare, the beginning of blitzkrieg fighting, and the eventual usage of atomic bombs in The Cold War. These changes constitute a paradigm shift due to the mass change in tactics used between WWI, WWII, and The Cold War.

The biggest shift in strategy was from defensive trench warfare to mass offensive assaults. Trench warfare was not first used in WWI; it actually was used in previous wars like the American Civil War (“The World War I Allied Trenches”). Why did a stalemate occur if this strategy was used in past wars?  The problem was that new technological advances on both sides disallowed offensive movement with long-range weapons. Basically, there were the Allied trenches and parallel to them was the Central Powers’ trenches. There were more trenches directly behind the front lines with command centers. These trenches had mortar pits and aid stations. Additionally, riflemen, snipers, and machine guns were stationed all across the trenches to defend impending attacks. Whenever soldiers tried to advance on the other’s trenches, they were either hit by artillery, shot by a machine gun or sniper, blown up by a mine, stuck in barbed wire, or asphyxiated by chemical agents (“The World War I Allied Trenches”). Even at sea, the defensive technology disallowed offensive advancement from either side. Ships had mounted guns that could strike targets as far as twenty miles away. Airplanes were utilized, but they were not as advanced as other military contributors at the time; they proved useful to psychologically impair soldiers during WWI (“Military Technology in World War I”). This created the overarching stalemate that consumed the Great War. 

One of the most important technological advancements during WWI was artillery. Artillery contributed greatly to the ongoing stalemate. Artillery was used offensively and defensively, mostly with little success. Trenches were initially built to protect soldiers from artillery, which created trenching in WWI. Whenever one side would try to attack, they would use artillery first, then send soldiers across with little or no success. Even if they gained some land, the other side would do the exact same thing, and gain it back. This happened mostly on the Western Front, where much of WWI was fought. Once the Americans entered the war, they helped break the stalemate and win the war with additional troops and supplies desperately needed by the Allied troops (“The World War I Allied Trenches”).  

The most substantial change in warfare was the use of chemical agents in World War I. Initially, the production and eventual use was in hope to end the stalemate (Coleman 13). The introduction to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) further increased the atrocities and mass casualties throughout WWI and into following wars (1). Some specific chemical agents used were Mustard Gas (Yperite), Phosgene, Hydrogen Cyanide, Chlorine and many other variants. Professors, most prominently in Germany, researched under the guise of fertilizers; Professor Haber in Germany extracted nitrates from the atmosphere, which can be used for fertilizer, or explosives (15). Haber additionally developed the poison agent, Zyklon B, which is massively used in World War II. He won the Nobel Prize in 1919 for his work on nitrogen fixation (40). This shift is most seen in  pre-WWI Germany, where the chemical industry boosted their economy and global position. Whereas in previous years research and technology was a model of the future, these concepts flooded the present and heralded a change in global society. Even though the Hague Declaration of 1899 banned using projectiles for exclusively chemical agents, world powers like Germany added explosive charges with the agents so it was “allowable” under the ambiguous declaration. The Germans called this new weapon T-Stoff. The first use of poison gas was April 15th, 1915 in Ypres, Belgium (“Military Technology in World War I”). This introduced to the battlefield a ferocity unforeseen and massively impacted the rest of the impending war. 

A problem with the use of chemical agents was that they was no efficient way to release the gas on the target. They relied on the wind and weather to carry the poison gas clouds across no man’s land to the enemies. This caused friendly soldiers to get injured or even killed if the wind switched, or offensive movement impossible if the cloud did not dissipate. This furthered the ongoing stalemate (13-14). To put the chemicals in perspective, if one inhaled 30 parts Chlorine per a million parts air, the symptom would be harsh coughing. The Germans used 1,000 parts Chlorine per a million parts air, which strips away the lining of the lungs, therefore killing its victim (17). 

Even more heinous gases were created after Chlorine and Mustard Gas, but after WWI, wars saw less use of them due to the brutality of the symptoms occurring due to those chemicals. Out of this came advancement in procedures and inventions to limit the effects of harmful chemical agents. The gas mask protected soldiers, civilians, even animals from the chemicals. This advancement was used in many years following WWI. At the 1925 Geneva Convention, officials prohibited the use of chemicals in war, but sadly did not stipulate internal conflicts or civil wars. Additionally, it did not cover research, production, or possession of chemical agents (46). After WWI, research into chemicals continued in all the world powers, even including Germany, which was outlawed by Article 171 of the Treaty of Versailles (40). These advancements created a shift into the modern era of scientific research and advancement, whereas previous research was not a contributor to society. While some of these advancements were positive, much wrong was done with the newly acquired research. Italy used chemical weapons on Ethiopia to invade their land. Additionally, Japan used chemical weapons on China in the Sino-Japanese War (46). The newly formed League of Nations had no proper authority to condemn these attacks, or even punish them for breaking the pact at the Geneva Convention. This shifted global politics to the era of appeasement which further escalated ongoing issues with Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

Once the onslaught of World War II started, new offensive maneuvers combined with previous technology contributed to new strategies used throughout the war, the most infamous of these tactics was Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg translates to “lightning war” and contributed massively to German advancement in the beginning of the war. The whole concept of Blitzkrieg was fast and concentrated force to disrupt enemy forces. Forces targeted supplies and cut off communications through specific, quick attacks. The premise behind it was to decrease the casualty rate and efficiently use supplies and forces. This type of offensive strategy was tested in Poland, and massively used in the invasions of Belgium, France, and The Netherlands. Blitzkrieg allowed Germany to invade and occupy these countries with relatively little resistance. Additionally, German Commander Erwin Rommel used Blitzkrieg in his North African campaign (“Blitzkrieg”). As the war escalated with American involvement, U.S. leaders then began utilizing this strategy, displaying a total shift in warfare strategy with offensive movement overshadowing defensive stalemate in the previous wars. 

Blitzkrieg constituted a massive shift in itself as its basic concept disallowed the use of chemical agents. Even though Germany had destructive poisons such as Tabun and Sarin, they were unused throughout the war for a multitude of reasons (51-52). First, since the use of these agents would cause friendly casualties due to Blitzkrieg style battle (60). Second, Hitler served in WWI and saw first-hand the devastating effects of these gases and feared retaliation from the Allied Forces. The use of chemical agents was not used on Allied Soldiers, but at Nazi Death Camps such as Auschwitz, where Zyklon B was used to murder Jews, intellectuals, gypies, communists, homosexuals, the mentally and physically handicapped (“Auschwitz”). The biggest use of chemical weapons in WWII was the use of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This research and creation of these bombs were under the guise of the Manhattan Project led by the U.S. government. The eventually use of these WMDs led to the ending of WWII with thousands of civilian deaths and casualties from the initial explosion and mass radiation. This use of chemical weapons restored the ethical dilemma of chemical and nuclear warfare. Some believed the use to be ethical because it ended the war and saved lives, whereas others believed the atomic bombs unethical due to the loss of thousands of lives and environmental concerns involving mass radiation of the surrounding areas. 

This shift in ethical debate led to the lack of usage of WMDs in the Cold War due to mutually assured destruction. Since the world powers (U.S., U.S.S.R, etc.) all had types of nuclear weapons, then if one used WMDs, then the country would retaliate with another WMD, therefore nullifying the attack and creating unnecessary deaths of civilians. This led to a “war” that lasted up until the 1990s, without any actual battles or direct mass offensives from either side. It was more of an ideological war to promote Western values over communism of the Eastern countries. This type of conflict was less of a stalemate, just countries unable to fight without mass casualties from both sides, which ultimately lead to the longevity of The Cold War. 

This paradigm shift in strategy and technology has contributed to the change from defensive tactics used in WWI to offensive tactics in WWII. All of these changes: the end of trench warfare, the introduction of chemical warfare, the shift to blitzkrieg style battle, and the use of atomic weapons at the end of WWII constitute changes not only in warfare and tactics, but overall societal problems. These shifts created ethical and moral debates that were needed in society and still are today. Is it even possible to outlaw chemical warfare due to scientific advancements made? Are countries able to punish other countries effectively through a globalized association? These questions are still being asked today due to this strategic shifts which have forever changed global society. It seems that the wars continually become longer, such as the Cold War or the War on Terror, which furthers emphasizes the consequences of the paradigm shift involving weapons and strategies used in warfare. Time will tell if this constitutes a more positive or more negative shift to create more ethical warfare through technological advancements. Especially in the age of modernity, awareness of the ethical dilemma concerning warfare technology must be avidly followed and constantly questioned. As soldiers and armed personnel are less involved in war, with drone warfare consuming battles, governments must be held accountable for immorality during war and ethical conduct, especially when involving civilians. Furthermore, as countries increase defense spending, citizens must hold their governments accountable for the ethical aspects of these spendings and ensuring that freedoms of others are protected with this increased expenditure. Overall, this paradigm shift from 1914 to modernity highlights not only strategic and technological advancements, but the ethical aspect pertaining to this advancements.

Works Cited

“Auschwitz.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 15 Dec. 2009, https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/auschwitz.

“Blitzkrieg.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 14 Oct. 2009, https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/blitzkrieg.

Coleman, Kim. A History of Chemical Warfare. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

“Military Technology in World War I.” The Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/collections/world-war-i-rotogravures/articles-and-essays/military-technology-in-world-war-i/.

“Mobilized Strength and Casualty Losses.” The Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/

collections/world-war-i-rotogravures/articles-and-essays/events-and-statistics/mobilized-strength-and-casualty-losses/.

“The Pacific Strategy, 1941-1944.” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, The National 

World War II Museum, 9 July 2017, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/pacific-strategy-1941-1944.

“Research Starters: Worldwide Deaths in World War II.” The National WWII Museum | New

 Orleans, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war.

“The World War I Allied Trenches.” U.S. Army Heritage & Education Center, https://ahec.armywarcollege.edu/trail/WWI/index.cfm.

 

I watched two TED talks, “Could a tattoo help you stay healthy?” and “What I learned about freedom after escaping North Korea.” Between these two presentations, I found the first more engaging due to his exceptional organization, informative and thought provoking content, and his intriguing vocal delivery. 

I found his organization of the presentation easily followed with him starting in chronological order of historic discoveries, which included displaying an early human with multiple tattoos. He then presents how tattoos have had a negative connotation in more modern history, even though tattoos date back to early civilization. He presenting the debacle of tattoos first, he then introduces ways of advancing tattoos not just for art, but for medical needs. These advancements include tattoos to detect ultraviolet and body temperature. He ultimately ends that tattoos can be useful to modern technological advances that can save lives. I think that some of his transitions were not smooth, but overall I felt the organization was well rounded. 

I found that the content of the presentation was intriguing and included a powerpoint further engaged the audience. In the powerpoint, he displayed images of tattoos on an early man, while also showing some of his tattoos. By doing this, he relates modernity to early civilization and how advancement in tattoos haven’t changed much since then. He then introduces his tattoo ideas through images of those tattoos on himself, which help give an idea to the audience on how the tattoos work. Additionally, the presentation shows how the tattoos are very small, or even not visible to persuade people who oppose tattoos that these have useful needs that don’t have artistic value. I think he could’ve use even more slides in his presentation as it depended on visual aids due to the topic of tattoos. 

The best part of his presentation was his vocal delivery. He added subtle humor throughout to engage the audience and lighten the mood. Additionally, he included purposeful pauses that slowed his speech down so it could be easily followed by the audience. These pauses also added emphasis to certain topics of importance. He additionally was very confident in himself and his ideas for tattoos to revolutionize technology. I think he could’ve been more mobile on stage instead of standing in one place for most of the presentation, but that might just be personal preference while speaking. Overall, I found this topic very engaging due to how he presenting the material and his confidence in his knowledge.

  Columbine. Pulse Night Club. Sandy Hook. San Bernardino. Las Vegas. Marjory Stoneman Douglas. These domestic acts of terrorism on United States soil have ignited a debate of second amendment rights and gun control legislation. On one side, Democrats want legislation to restrict gun vendors, including universal background checks, limits on magazine clips, and ammunition restrictions. Conversely, Republicans want to protect second amendment rights by limiting legislation on guns. Both sides value rhetoric to portray their side as correct. High standing politicians, like President Barack Obama and Senator Mike Lee, have spoken for and against using specific rhetorical devices that appeal to the audience’s emotions and statistical fact to persuade their specific audiences. Usually, a politician’s audience is aware of their partisan views, and although might not agree, they are willingly listening by choice. By speaking to a freely listening audience, the goal for the speaker/politician is to reach a larger audience through media coverage and people in the audience to engage others in conversation about the specific viewpoints. In a speech by former President Barack Obama at the University of Hartford after the tragic events of Sandy Hook, he utilizes pathos, kairos, and strong stylistic choices to convey to the necessity of “common sense gun laws.” Whereas, in a speech given on the Senate floor by Senator Mike Lee (UT-R), Lee relies on commonplace and ethos to boost his credibility while giving insight into the origin of gun rights.  

           Four months after the Sandy Hook shooting, President Barack Obama demands action to prevent further gun violence through a pathetic appeal to the audience. Obama highlights that “it’s time to strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems get the treatment they need before it’s too late.  Let’s do that for our kids and for our communities.” By expanding on the concept of community, Obama connects the commonplace of communal safety and gun laws to legitimize the need for strong legislation on the issue. Concurrently, through this commonplace, Obama instills in the audience the dire need to protect all, including friends, family, acquaintances, neighbors, teachers, etc. This commonplace emotionally connects the audience, stating that change is necessary in communities. This pathetic appeal by Obama evokes numerous emotions such as grief, anger, sadness, confusion, and appeals to the audience to use those emotions to instill change in society.  

           Kairos is utilized throughout as the centerpiece of his speech. As stated before, President Obama spoke in Connecticut—where Sandy Hook occurred—four months after the tragic shooting. Choosing this setting allows for his speech to gain more attention, especially in media outlets. By receiving more attention, his message for massive gun reform is displayed to more people and therefore, the more people who can vote for a countrywide change in favor of gun reform. He prefaces that “ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks… and yet, there is only one thing that can stand in the way of change that just about everybody agrees on, and that’s politics in Washington.” While not citing the statistics, it emboldens the population to raise awareness and petition for change. Additionally, it reaffirms one of the basic foundations of the U.S. government that the people are in control of who is in government. This affirmation kairotically illuminates the ways of creating change in society.  

           President Obama further conveys his anti-gun viewpoints through his stylistic choices including timely anaphora and hypothetical questions. President Obama proclaims that “we have to tell Congress it’s time to crack down on gun trafficking… We have to tell Congress it’s time to restore the ban on military-style assault weapons… We have to tell Congress it’s time to strengthen school safety.” This repetition asserts the necessity of gun reform. Due to the repetitive nature, it articulates how dire the need is for just legislation for the family affected by gun violence. Additionally, his use of hypotheticals towards the end provoke the necessary thought of the personal burdens created by gun violence. Obama claims, “if you’re a law-abiding gun seller, wouldn’t you want to know you’re not selling your gun to someone who’s likely to commit a crime? Shouldn’t we make it harder, not easier for somebody who is convicted of domestic abuse to get his hands on a gun?” By asking these questions, President Obama confronts individuals to contemplate the drastic consequences of gun violence, which further strengthens his rhetoric combined with pathos and kairos.  

           Conversely, a speech given on the Senate floor by Sen. Mike Lee (UT-R) in the April following the Sandy Hook shooting articulates his stance against gun control through the commonplace of individualism in the United States and logos, which discredits reform at a federal level by reaffirming basic rights held by citizens. By initially reaffirming the commonplace of personal safety from other individuals and the government, he reinforces the basic premise of the second amendment—protecting oneself from others wanting to cause harm to him/her or their loved ones. He insists that background checks “would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional rights.” This commonplace is a foundational centerpiece of the United States, where individualism is held in the highest regard. Any violation of individualism betrays basic principles of the United States.  Lee further asserts to “resist an immediate vote on any new restrictions that would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens rather than reduce violent crime.” While not specifically quoting fact, Lee questions the validity of gun laws and the effectiveness of the laws. Do they actually decrease crime rates? Or do they take guns out of law-abiding citizens who could protect themselves when necessary? Lee raises these questions through logical thinking and facilitates thought into the consequences regarding strict legislation. 

           By scrutinizing the basic premise of gun control legislation, he gains credibility and boosts his ethos throughout the Republican, Conservative, and Libertarian parties, whilst challenging the Democratic and Liberal parties on the legality of gun control. While introducing his reasoning on second amendment rights, Lee establishes that “government can’t be everywhere at all times.” This statement is basically referring to himself, as he is part of the government. By basically calling himself out on the issue, he refines his argument by equating himself as an advocate for individualism in a centralized, overbearing government. This propels his ethos because he is recognized as a leader of reason and individualism. A similarity between the two speeches are they both address that change is needed in Congress, just different change. Obama proposes more legislation passed, while Lee wants to dissuade legislation with a mandatory two-thirds vote on all gun legislation. By mandating a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate, Lee strives to create more bipartisan legislation on the issue, while limiting extreme leftist legislation. Lee connect the commonplace of individualism with the basic principles of the second amendment to bolster his credibility on the senate floor. 

           Both Obama and Lee use rhetorical strategies to persuade their audience to accept their views on gun legislation.While both were delivered after the events of Sandy Hook, Lee deviated and did not use kairos, while kairos was the main device exemplified in Obama’s speech. Lee’s reliance on the constitutionality of gun rights (logos) promoted his argument for gun rights while bolstering his credibility within party lines. Ultimately, Obama integrated a more emotional approach, utilizing pathos, kairos, and style to influence voters. Both were persuasive through different rhetorical approaches, which were chosen carefully based on their audiences.

 

Columbine. Pulse Night Club. Sandy Hook. San Bernardino. Las Vegas. Marjory Stoneman Douglas. All these shootings including many others have ignited a debate of second amendment rights and gun control legislation. On one side, democrats want legislation to restrict gun vendors, including universal background checks, limits on magazine clips, and ammunition restrictions. Conversely, republicans want to protect second amendment rights by limiting legislation on guns. Both sides refer to rhetoric to portray their side as correct. Many credible politicians have spoken for and against using an array of rhetorical devices to persuade their specific audiences. In a speech by former President Barack Obama at the University of Hartford after the tragic events of Sandy Hook, he utilizes pathos, kairos, and strong stylistic choices to convey to the necessity of “common sense gun laws;” whereas in a speech given on the Senate floor by Senator Mike Lee (UT-R) relies on logos and ethos to boost his credibility while giving facts on gun rights.  

I. Introduction 

1. 1. 1. The debate of gun control/second amendment rights has dominated media for decades; with an increase in domestic mass shootings, citizens have become more and more extreme on the issue. After the tragic events of the Sandy Hook shooting, former President Barack Obama spoke at the University of Hartford to advocate for “common sense gun laws.” (Attention Grabber) 
      2. Using pathos, kairos, and anaphora, President Obama urges Americans to reform gun policy to include background checks and ammunition limits. (central claim/preview) 

Transition: President Obama’s utilizes pathos to evoke the necessity of reform to protect the Nation’s children and others afflicted by gun violence. 

II. Body 

1. 1. 1. Pathos 

                a. Throughout the speech, Obama uses an emotional appeal to bring         about change. 

                             i. “[A ban on military style weapons] to make it harder for a gunman to fire 154 bullets into his victims in less than five minutes” 

1. 1. 1.                 ii. Displays the upsetting consequences of loose-gun laws 
      2.  
      3.     b. Additionally, an anecdote about police officers further evokes an emotional appeal to maintain peace in communities.
      4. 1. 1.   i. “A group of police officers in Colorado told me last week that, thanks to background checks, they’ve been able to stop convicted murderers, folks under restraining orders for committing violent domestic abuse from buying a gun.”
            2. ii. This testimony from the police officer creates a feeling of bipartisanship on the issue, therefore making it a commonplace in U.S. society. 
            3. iii. Necessity of maintaining peace in communities is a value held by all citizens.  

Transition: In conjunction with the evident pathos throughout, kairos is employed due the increase in mass/spree killings plaguing the nation.  

        2. Kairos 

                a. “right time, right place” because lives are at stake 

                          i. “It’s time to crack down on gun trafficking” 

                         ii. The shooting had national attention, necessary to create change so these events end 

               b. “it’s time to strengthen school safety… before it’s too late” 

                          i. Implores not only the people, but the government that change is inevitable, or people will continue to be hurt 

               c. Speaking in Connecticut, where the mass shooting occurred 

                         i. The community is still healing from the losses 

                        ii. Speaking directly to community will inform citizens of different ways of reform 

Transition: Additionally, stylistic choices such as anaphora succinct diction bolster his urging tone for gun reform. 

     3. Style 

               A. Anaphora 

                          a. Repetition of key phrases implore the need of quick  legislature/action to decrease gun violence. 

                          b. “We have to tell Congress…”  

                                    i. highlights that proper legislature needed to protect all populations 

                         c. “Let’s make that happen… Let’s get that done… Let’s put that to a vote” 

                                  i. Creates an insistent tone that conveys a sense of immediate actions, thereby solutions. 

                                 ii. Demands action from Legislature (e.g. Senators, Representatives, Governors, State Legislators) 

Transition/Ending Signaler: All three rhetorical devices accentuate the absolute necessity of actions, not just with citizens, but government officials. 

1. Conclusion 

Pathos evoked an emotional response to emphasize the obligation that the government must protect its citizens. Kairos presented an adequate time to address this controversial issue due to people afflicted by gun violence. President Obama’s stylistic choices further bolster his argument by creating an insistent tone to address gun violence. Ultimately, these rhetorical devices help persuade the audience that gun reform is necessary to bring communities back together and maintaining peace.  

George Bush’s Speech

On September 11th, 2001, terrorists attacked The United States of America, killing almost 3,000 people. This event affected every person across the nation, and across the world. Citizens were lost and did not know what lied ahead. Later that day, then-President George W. Bush addressed the nation by giving a grieving, yet hopeful speech that revitalized the country through displaying the resilience of the United States.

By giving the speech the same evening as the devastating event, it is kairotic because the nation needed to convey a sense of unity and durability to outside attack. President Bush repeats throughout that “our military is powerful” and “our country is strong.” This repetition reaffirms that while the nation was attacked, the people will hold together even in the face of evil.

Additionally, President Bush uses an extended metaphor to portray the toughness that America can endure; “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.” This metaphor adds to the kairos of the piece due to its reaffirming nature that America is still America, meaning that we hold true to the same values as before.

One of these values highlighted in the speech is volunteerism. Throughout the introduction, President Bush identifies groups afflicted by the terrorist attacks. While initially, everyone was shocked, ordinary people became extraordinary. Firefighters, Police Officers, Nurses, Doctors, everyone who could help, came to help. From donating blood to giving to charity, volunteerism spurred across the nation. This unifying presence was symbolized throughout President Bush’s speech.

Ultimately, President Bush’s speech on 9/11 symbolized a turning point in American history. His condemnation was not just his, but the entire country’s. Additionally, the kairos of the speech disallowed The United States to become weakened, but to rebuild its already known strong ethos of  unity, durability, and volunteerism.

Within the realm of marketing products, advertisers struggle to market to multiple generations at once. With this ad, Beats headphones can market to the baby boomer generation up to Generation Z. By creating a commonplace of all genres of music, the ad reinvents the brand’s ethos to include a variety of tastes from rap to classic rock ‘n’ roll. Previously, the brand only marketed towards younger adults/teenagers who wanted name-brand headphones. By using Elvis Presley as the main focal point, it strengthens the brand’s argument that the headphones can be used by all people of all backgrounds, ages, and cultures.

Additionally, the purposeful color scheme of the advertisement adds emphasize on the headphones. All the surrounding area and background are neutral colors like black and gray; this is to highlight the bright, red headphones. By using this scheme, the audience’s attention is towards the brand Beats. Moreover, it adds a fashion component to the brand by alluding that if a consumer buys the headphones, it will make them more stylish. This ties back to Elvis because during his reign as “The King,” he was a fashion icon. Furthermore, the bold lettering of his nickname, “The King,” insinuates that not only Elvis is identified with the name, but also the brand Beats are referred, too. This type of passive persuasion is utilized to bolster the audience’s opinion of the brand. By connoting Beat’s headphones with a monarchal symbol, it signifies that Beat’s headphones are better than its competition.

With this combination of rhetorical strategies, the advertisement is extremely influential in persuading a diverse audience to buy this product. By reinventing the brand’s ethos and purposeful symbolism, the ad highlights the brand’s best qualities to influence consumers to purchase the product.