In order to be successful, history has shown time and time again that those delivering a speech must rely on several key factors when attempting to influence an audience. Over time, speakers have found that utilizing the basic components of rhetoric is essential if one is to sufficiently convey an argument or idea. Appeals to an audience’s ethics, logic, or emotions are present in virtually every great work yet seen by mankind. However, while these argumentative concepts are necessary in the construction of a piece, other factors may be just as important in determining how to be rhetorically effective. The idea of “knowing one’s audience” is imperative when compiling a work, with such knowledge allowing an individual to determine what sorts of arguments and appeals will be most effective given the circumstances. In this way, kairotic appeals become important, as understanding the timeliness of an argument is often instrumental in the creation of effective rhetoric.

Few speeches of the 20th Century have proven more representative of this idea than President Kennedy’s address to West Berlin. Delivered in June of 1963, Kennedy’s speech, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” came at a time when tensions between the Communist and Democratic worlds were at their most high, with the general public finding itself embroiled in an intense ideological battle for supremacy. In understanding the effects of current issues on his audience, the president was able to properly coordinate his appeals to maximize their effectiveness, taking advantage of the various political opportunities available to him. In doing so, Kennedy composed a speech that became a defining work of the Cold War era and a cornerstone of American influence abroad.

In the years prior to Kennedy’s visit to Germany, the country had been divided into two distinct and ideologically opposed states. Because of growing hostilities between the Soviets and the Western Powers, the area of Germany occupied by the communists had been prevented from reunifying with the rest of the country. Additionally, the city of Berlin, located within the Communist East Germany, was also split into eastern and western portions, with the city itself becoming the front line for the American and Soviet standoff. As tensions escalated, this divide would become physically represented through the construction of the Berlin Wall, a heavily militarized barrier built by the East Germans preventing any interaction with the outside world.

When Kennedy arrived in the city in 1963, Germany had been divided in this way for well over a decade, with the Cold War now being in full swing. The West German people, having just experienced the economic, infrastructural, and human loss of the second world war, were now frustrated with the Soviet partition of their country, and were naturally fearful of another global conflict. Seizing upon this, Kennedy set out to address Germany directly, not only to promote Democratic values, but to make an ideological spectacle of it all. By simply delivering the speech in the city of Berlin, especially after the construction of the Berlin Wall, the president was taking advantage of a great political opportunity. Because of this, the implicit kairotic appeal of simply delivering an address amidst the ongoing struggle greatly bolstered the speech’s rhetorical effectiveness.

Continuing with this sort of political opportunism, Kennedy ensured to incorporate basic rhetorical appeals into his work by linking them to the ongoing political context. One of the more obvious instances of this concept is his appeal to logic, which functioned just as much as a dig at the communists as it did as an incorporation of rationality into the piece. A prime example of this begins with the line, “Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect.” While this line can be interpreted as an ethical appeal, reinforcing the credibility of Kennedy and demonstrating a sense of open-mindedness, it also serves to set up the president’s appeal to reason. He follows this with “But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in — to prevent them from leaving us,” referring to the wildly unpopular Berlin Wall that had come to define the East German state. This sentence works to expose the Communists not only as oppressive, but as irrational, with the audience being encouraged to interpret the Berlin Wall as a pitiful attempt at control. It also serves to bolster the West’s ideological arsenal against the East German government, by painting them and the whole of the Eastern Powers as illogical and unstable.

Another factor instrumental in the success of Kennedy’s speech were the various emotional appeals incorporated throughout the address. By referencing the state of the current conflict and exploiting feelings relevant at the time, the president was able to effectively rally the audience through targeted appeals to their pride and sense of liberty. One such instance comes with Kennedy’s repetition of the phrase “Let them come to Berlin,” which acts as a sort of challenge to skeptics within the United States and throughout the Western World, while emboldening the people of West Berlin in the face of their current challenges. This portion of the speech also works to belittle the arguments of Communists, with the line, “There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin,” holding the capitalist western portion of the city in contrast with the bleak, walled-in portion in the east.

Another powerful emotional appeal comes at the speech’s conclusion, when Kennedy begins, “All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin.” This line helps to reinforce the sense of pride among West Berliners Kennedy has encouraged throughout the speech, and begins to build a sense of universal solidarity among any listeners, regardless of their location. He then continues, “And therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words — ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’,” linking all proponents of democracy through an emotionally-charged quote in German. By speaking in the local language, as well as showing his pride in their country, the president works to stoke patriotic fervor among his audience, rallying the people of West Germany behind his anti-communist message.

Overall, Kennedy’s efforts to apply current events to logical and emotional appeals demonstrate that context is often key when attempting to reach an audience. Understanding the politics and culture of an area can greatly assist in effective communication, as well as determining what sorts of arguments will be most effective when speaking to a crowd. In the case of his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, Kennedy proves that utilizing a given context is an extremely powerful rhetorical tool that can potentially dictate the impact of one’s intended message.

In the past few months, COVID-19 has rapidly spread across the world, infecting hundreds of thousands of people and disrupting millions of lives. The virus has dealt a crippling blow to the global economy, with stock prices everywhere falling at an alarming rate. This week, bank forecasters and executives in the United States have officially declared that we are in a recession, and with the American end of the pandemic only just beginning, it is hard to see a situation where we can recover quickly.

Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan, China

This country has endured many pandemics in its relatively short history, with Americans braving the scourge of the Spanish Flu just over 100 years ago, a disease that took more lives than were lost throughout the entirety of the first world war. However, unlike the Spanish Flu, the pandemic facing us today is referred to only by its technical medical abbreviation, with COVID-19 simply being a shortened form of “coronavirus disease 2019.” This is a very unique phenomenon, especially in the wake of diseases such as the 1950s-era Asian Flu (H2N2), MERS (Middle East Respirators Syndrome), and WNV (West Nile Virus), all of which were named after their geographic origin. Even other diseases, such as the Swine Flu, were referred to as something other than a technical medical term, even if their name did not reflect their location.

So what makes this virus different from those seen previously? COVID-19 has been accompanied by a blatant and deliberate disinformation effort in order to prevent any blame from falling on the shoulders of the Chinese Government. It is now known that Chinese Officials were aware of the coronavirus as early as December of 2019, and in that time, operatives and law enforcement officials made efforts to silence or intimidate anyone attempting to raise the alarm. This attempted cover up caused the delay allowing the virus to spread throughout the world, a deadly an irresponsible error all in the name of saving face. In addition to this, the Chinese Government has been internationally pushing the conspiracy theory that the United States Army is responsible for the outbreak, a dangerous and problematic accusation.

At the same time, China has taken advantage of the current situation and accompanying media storm to take care of its own business. With attention now away from its government, China has begun a crack down on the foreign free press, with American and British news companies, including the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal all being banned from the country. Additionally, tensions have once again escalated in Hong Kong, with the sudden media blackout there allowing police to carry out large-scale raids on protesters without the threat of international condemnation. The actions of the Chinese Government have been dangerous and unacceptable, and will result in an unnecessary loss of life across the world. As citizens of the free world it is up to us to respond in a way that counters the misinformation and aggression observed in the Communist state in China today. We need to enact official policy to label the pandemic as an irresponsible and preventable blunder, as well as to punish China for their exploitation of the crisis for their own motives. The United States needs to officially recognize the disease as the Chinese Virus, and impose impose tariffs on the country in response to their dangerous activity.

A Muslim in West China holds a sign depicting victims of “reeducation” camps in West China

To be clear: referring to the Chinese virus as such is nothing more than criticizing an authoritarian regime, and should not be interpreted as an attack on any particular ethnicity. In the same way that a universal condemnation of Nazism is not equated with an attack on ethnic Germans, a condemnation of Communist China is in no way inherently racist towards Chinese or East Asian peoples. Such policy would have to reflect this, and help to emphasize the reality that Asian Americans are affected in the same way by Chinese aggression as any other American or free person in this world. The fate of our liberal democracy lies in the balance. If we choose to allow China to escape responsibility for this, it will only encourage a precedent already in motion: that the United States turns a blind eye to Chinese authoritarianism.

This issue is larger than the name of a virus. Up until now, we have collectively allowed China to oppress and kill its own people by demonstrating our apathy towards their crimes. As a society that has declared “never again” in the face of the horrors of the holocaust and western brands of authoritarianism, it is sickening to think that we have allowed things such as the Chinese concentration camps in Xinjiang or the crackdowns in Hong Kong to go unpunished. If we continue this trend, it is only a matter of time until the true threats China and its influence pose on the free world can no longer be ignored, and by then it may very well be too late. Today, Americans must take this opportunity to set a trend. All of us, regardless of our ethnicity, must unify in the face of a common threat. It is time to hold China accountable for this and every other crime the tyrannical Chinese regime has committed. This virus must be tacked to the reputation of the Chinese Communist Party forever.

Hello everyone and welcome back to my civic issue blog! Over the past few decades, few countries have had as much beef with the United States as Iran. Following the a long series of revolutions and internal political conflict in the country, Iran has emerged as a dominant force in the Middle East, and a fierce proponent of Islamic conservatism. The country also maintains strict opposition to western nations and American “imperialism,” which of course has led to some problems over the years.

Tehran, capital of Iran

For context, the Iranian regime that exists today has only been in power for a few decades, with the uprising that removed the country’s previous ruler only occurring in the late 1970s. The Iranian Revolution had many causes, but the main factors that played into the civil unrest and political radicalism that nearly tore the nation apart were decades of foreign influence, abuses of power by the Shah, and radical social-political reforms that angered the conservative and religious populations of Iran. In the years during and following the world wars, Iran was periodically exploited economically by foreign states (namely the Soviet Union and the UK), or even occupied, much to the dismay and frustration of the Iranian people. Companies, such as British Petroleum, took advantage of Iran’s abundance of oil, with opposition to foreign practices in Iran potentially being met with coups or assassinations. Understandably, this led to the creation of a negative sentiment regarding western nations and their influence, especially as the United States became more involved in the region during the Cold War.

Protesters gather in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution

Additionally, political suppression and secular reforms enacted under the Shah radicalized the clerical leaders and population of Iran, whose powers had been greatly diminished in the court system and political world. This tension eventually boiled over in the form of the Iranian Revolution, in which the Shah, as well as other secular leaders in the government, were ousted or killed. The following regime, under the leadership of former exile and religious leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, reversed any sort of progressive rules enacted under the previous government, and declared Iran and Islamic Republic. Instantly, the country was transformed into a radically conservative state, taking the form of the authoritarian Shi’i theocracy we all know and love today.

Right off the bat, relations between the United States and this new dictatorship were far from friendly. Iran’s anti-American sentiment had only been radicalized during the revolution, and upon President Carter’s decision to allow the Shah to seek medical treatment in the United States, everything broke down. The resulting seizure of American diplomats in the country, now known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis, set a hostile precedent for future dealings with the Iranians, which as of today, certainly shows no sign of changing. Although the final Americans held hostage were released in 1981, relations have yet to recover from the incident, with numerous minor political and military skirmishes occurring in the years following.

Aside from the war, Yemen is suffering from extreme famine

Today, Iran remains a regular enemy of the United States in the Middle East and abroad. While never confronting America in a full-scale war, Iran does finance paramilitary and terrorist organizations in order to represent their own interests and ideologies in regional disputes. One of these such conflicts is the Yemeni Civil War, in which Shia rebels have seized much of the western portion of the country from the government. While the United States is not currently involved, the war has transformed into a multinational conflict, with a coalition headed by Saudi Arabia (a fierce adversary of Iran) intervening in order to counter Iranian interests in a rebel victory. Additionally, Iranian paramilitary groups in Syria regularly clash with American-backed forces, only adding to the drama that is the Syrian Civil War.

Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was assassinated in a US drone strike in Iraq

Once again, tensions between the United States and Iran nearly boiled over following protests at the American embassy in Iraq and the subsequent assassination of Iranian General Soleimani. Ignoring the politicized opinions surrounding the current administration’s handling of the incident, one thing is for certain: we are incredibly lucky. While both sides were able to back off, in the future, we may be less fortunate, especially as Iran continues its nuclear program. So long as the Iranians pursue their ambitions to create a nuclear weapon, it is likely tensions between the country and the United States will only worsen, placing the region, and possibly the world, in a great deal of danger.

Hello everyone and welcome back to my Civic Issues blog series! Shortly after the world superpowers of the 20th Century had finished butchering one another during World War II, countries around the world once again found themselves on the brink of another devastating conflict. Without missing a beat, the United States and the Soviet Union had entered into an intense ideological staring contest, referred to as the Cold War, dividing the world once again between authoritarianism and liberalism. In the years following the second world war, the Soviet Union had forced several Eastern European states into subjugation, all the while maintaining a massive military presence that would easily overwhelm any opposing countries in the region. In response to this, a strategic military alliance between the United States and its Western allies was created in the form of NATO, a pact that still stands nearly 30 years after the dissolution of the USSR.

Map of NATO Member States

Officially known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO now consists of 29 members, most of which are in Europe. Since its official creation in 1949, the alliance has participated and responded to several conflicts and crises in many different regions. While many of these were disaster-relief programs, such as Hurricane Katrina, the organization was also involved in both Iraq Wars, the Bosnian War, and numerous stabilization campaigns in the Middle East and post-Yugoslavian Europe. Today, the organization is heavily involved in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan as well as peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, which declared its independence from Serbia in 2008. However, in the context of American foreign policy, the alliance has been a point of contention in recent years between the United States and its mainly European counterparts.

Trump at the NATO Summit in 2019

One of the many things then-candidate Donald Trump came under fire for during his presidential bid was his criticisms of NATO and its funding. The United States has long accused other member states of not contributing a fair amount to the organization, as well as not meeting guidelines for their own militaries. Currently, member states are expected to devote at least 2% of their overall GDP to defense spending. Today, only nine of NATO’s 29 members, including the United States meet this requirement. As a result, President Trump has made NATO funding and military spending a reoccurring theme of virtually every meeting of world leaders, much to the dismay of countries on his naughty list.

At the NATO Summit in 2019, Trump made his displeasure with other member states clear, suggesting that the alliance should progress towards a goal of 4% military spending, double the current benchmark, in an effort to shame countries such as Canada and Germany, who have yet to reach the required 2%. Additionally, the president directly criticized Canadian policy during a press conference with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who, in response, claimed his nation had raised spending to 1.4%. While the actual numbers for Canada are significantly lower (1.27-1.3%), they certainly are not unique to the country. Currently, all countries in NATO have pledged to reach the goal by 2024, however, the clock is ticking, and funding for the alliance is needed now more than ever.

Trump referred to Canadian spending as “slightly delinquent” at the NATO Summit

With increased Russian aggression in the region, specifically in Ukraine, a strong NATO is vital in protecting Europe, as well as American interests. Trump’s criticisms may come across as annoying to many world leaders, but to an extent, they are not without merit. His efforts to essentially pester the Europeans into pulling their weight has exposed the underlying cracks within the organization, and perhaps a growing apathy regarding its mission. Another issue for NATO’s stability is Turkey, which under Erdogan, has made some questionable decisions in recent years. The country’s aggression in Syria and its purchase of Russian military equipment has been the latest chapter in worsening US-Turkey relations, with the United States responding to the measures with sanctions. Due to its strategic importance, Turkey’s troubling behavior is detrimental to the whole of the alliance, and their seemingly warming ties with Russia are certainly cause for concern.

Despite its obvious issues, not all is bad for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Just before last year’s summit, NATO officially announced a new plan drastically lowering America’s expected contribution to the alliance, a move that helped to appease President Trump, as well as to put fears over an American withdraw from the alliance to rest. With most countries now raising their military spending closer to the benchmark rate, NATO is going to be much better prepared to deal with future conflicts, especially with Russia.

Hello everyone and welcome to my first Civic Issues Blog post! For this blog, I will be analyzing United States foreign policy, its complications, potential shortcomings, and the opinions of other countries. Because of its vast economic and military power, America has a lot of interests in a lot of different places, and seems to get itself involved in just about any conflict these days, for better or for worse. Some would consider many of our country’s foreign policy decisions to be questionable at best, and there’s no place America likes to be questionable more than the Middle East.

Map of approximate numbers and locations of US troops

Today, the United States plays a major political and military role in the Middle East, with American military bases and soldiers being found in the vast majority of the region’s countries, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey. Despite the nearly 70,000 troops stationed throughout the area, the United States is currently involved in only one active war, Afghanistan, the longest running armed conflict in our nation’s history. Outside of Afghanistan, most of the American military presence can be attributed to anti-terror campaigns, defending economic and military interests, and of course, keeping tabs on Iran.

Iran and the Unites States have a tense relationship to say the least, especially now with President Trump at the helm of foreign policy. Trump made his criticisms of the Obama-Era Iran Nuclear Deal a major part of his presidential bid, leading to the United State’s withdrawal from the agreement in 2018. Since then, sanctions have been reinstated on the country, and political hostilities have resumed, culminating in the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani and the subsequent missile strike on an Iraqi airbase. Although hostilities have seemed to peak recently between the two countries, relations between the US and Iran have been spotty for decades, with the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Iranian seizure of American sailors in 2016 being two prime examples of past tension.

President Trump formalizes the withdrawal from the nuclear deal

Even though hostilities seemed to have backed off in that department, at least for now, the United States continues to face other issues in region as well. Iraq and Afghanistan, following US military action, have both been horribly destabilized, with each being plagued by terrorist groups and separatist militias that serve as a constant threat to the governments in power. To say that this has lowered public opinion of the United States in the region is likely an understatement. However, not all of the failed or failing states of the Middle East can credit their ailments to Uncle Sam. Syria, a close ally of Russia and Iran, has largely descended into full-blown chaos on its own, with the United States limiting its military intervention in the Syrian Civil War to a single missile strike. While Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad was hardly a fan of the attack, it did little to escalate tensions between America and the troubled country, and a full-blown invasion of the country at this point seems unlikely.

While it may sometimes seem like America has managed to turn the whole region against itself, the Middle East is home to a few friendlier faces. Saudi Arabia is often cited as a strategic ally to the United States, mainly because both countries are dead-set on opposing Iran. While Saudi Arabia could not be more ideologically different from America, common political and economic interests help to keep relations cozy, alongside the mutual crusade to prevent Iranian expansion. Saudi Arabia is far from perfect, with the country involving itself in its own brands of shady activity in the region, but whatever. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and right now, both countries have chosen to buddy up.

Members of the Saudi Royal Family

In addition to the Saudis, the United States finds a consistent ally in Israel, a nation existing in a constant border dispute over an area roughly the size of New Jersey. Israel is certainly not without its problems, but the country’s common interests and (mostly) democratic system puts them on good terms with the United States, allowing a lot of its more questionable moves to go largely unopposed.

Overall, the role of the United States in the Middle East has proven to be complicated, with American influence and power now being an almost necessary component of regional stability. It is only now, after decades of war and occupation that the United States has realized how deeply ensnared it is in the area’s conflicts, and how disastrous a quick withdrawal could be. The statement that we should never have gotten involved in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place is a moot point. For better or for worse, we are there. Now, it is up to the leadership of this country to find a way out.

Image from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/amazing-rare-photographs-berlin-wall-coming-down-180953278/

Few instances in history have been more momentous and far-reaching than the fall of the Berlin Wall. Signifying the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the destruction of the border separating East and West Berlin has undoubtedly been remembered as a powerful moment for civilization. The image I chose to analyze today was taken before the wall was officially dismantled, as West German protesters attempted to destroy the concrete barrier themselves. Captured in 1989, just days before workers commenced the wall’s deconstruction, this powerful photograph seems to assert the resiliency of the human race, and show how powerful solidarity can be, even in the face of injustice.

The first aspect of the image that demonstrates this sort of determination is the water shown spewing through cracks in the concrete. In the article accompanying this image, the photographer, Alexandra Avakian, recounts of the East German border guards spraying the protesters with water cannons as they attempted to destroy the wall. Despite being sopping wet and freezing from the cold, the West German rioters pictured above continue, seemingly undeterred, indicating their unwavering dedication to their cause.

Additionally, even as border guards from the other side actively attempt to stop or discourage them, the crowd shown in the image remains motivated. They are seen cheering on the sole man at the center of the photo as he swings a sledge hammer dramatically at the wall itself. Even as he is alone physically in his efforts in this scene, it is clear that the man, and others like him, are acting in a way encouraged by the broader public, indicative of a strong sense of solidarity among the rioters. This sort of empowerment is felt through the intense expressions seen in the image from onlookers and the wall’s assailant alike.

Finally, despite the implied dangers of such actions, a man is seen in the background scaling a ladder leaning on the Berlin Wall. In his hand, the lone climber holds what was then the West German national flag. He is seen observing the powerful spectacle below, as the man breaking the wall as is sprayed by East German water cannons. At the same time, it appears the climber is planning to at least wave his country’s flag where the guards on the other side can see it, obviously in some form of protest. This aspect of the image demonstrates yet another example of the rioters’ collective determination and motivation for their cause.

Shortly after this, the wall bisecting the city of Berlin would fall forever, with East Germany and West Germany unifying once more in the following years. This event changed history, and ushered in a radically new era for mankind, as the divisions that had plagued civilization throughout the 20th Century were slowly beginning to disappear. Images like this one capture the true emotions of the moments that defined history, and demonstrate how powerful and durable the human spirit really is.

In his TED Talk, “A Free World Needs Satire,” Patrick Chappatte speaks about the importance of cartoons in the world of politics and broader social order. The primary theme of the speech was quite obvious, with Chappatte, a political cartoonist, arguing how important the use of satire as a critical tool is in order to preserve democracy and promote free thought. To reinforce this idea, he provides several historical examples of the use of caricatures and political humor, such as satirical depictions of French King in the 1830s. These cartoons helped pave the way for the free press in France, and helped to further free speech rights both in the country and across the world.

Chappatte also includes examples of oppression in order to depict the importance of political satire in the United States. While he begins with describing instances of foreign persecution, such as the killing or jailing of government critics in the Middle East, Chappatte also reminds everyone of how close to home these issues can really reach. By providing his own personal experience with The New York Times, who was quick to ban political cartoons following backlash for a particular controversy, the speaker reminds the audience that even in the United States freedom is constantly in the balance. He then turns his speech into a statement against internet sensationalism and mob culture, as well as the corporate media’s willingness to cave under pressure to radical voices.

I see this change in tone from presenting the persecution of satire from a historical or foreign issue to a current or domestic one as being very effective. The thought-provoking technique of shocking the audience with this problem’s true relatable and present nature is what I believe makes Chappatte’s argument convincing and valid, with the silencing of dissenting opinions being seen by virtually everyone in some capacity or another. This aspect of his work definitely demonstrates what differentiates a speech from a presentation, with Chappatte’s talk capitalizing largely on his relatable and grounded tone, as well as the provocative twists he includes. These methods of communication and delivery differ from a speech, which would definitely be more rooted in pure inspirational and emotional tactics, rather than attempting to convey information in a persuasive way.

Patrick Chappatte- “A Free World Needs Satire”

Long before launching his own bid for the presidency, Ronald Reagan endorsed Barry Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate in 1964. In the height of the Cold War, Reagan’s fiery rhetoric was a welcome and reassuring contribution to the political world, with his speech, “A Time for Choosing,” going down in history, largely being regarded as the start of his career in politics. Throughout the two minutes I analyzed (the last two minutes of the speech), Reagan exhibits several components of a successful speech, through ensuring proper eye contact, gestures, vocal variety, and of course, emotional appeals to patriotism. His seemingly fearless demeanor throughout the speech helped to reinforce its meaning, with these tactics allowing the address to make a considerable impression on his audience, as well as on those who have viewed it since.

While Reagan does periodically glance down at what I would assume to be notes or a script, he does maintain consistent and determined eye contact throughout his presentation. This simple aspect of his delivery helps to convey a sense of confidence which, coupled with the unwavering patriotic message, helps to embolden viewers. Reagan also utilizes minimal hand gestures when emphasizing important points, as well as continually shifting his posture, seemingly to portray a lack of nervousness in delivering his message.

In addition to these methods of conveying confidence, Reagan refrains from speaking monotonous, instead speaking over a wide vocal range. By talking calmly at some points, as well as projecting his words for emphasis at others, he is able to reinforce the concepts being presented by capturing the audience’s attention. For example, towards the end of the speech (about 3:50) Reagan speaks in a relatively calm tone in comparison with other portions of the speech, underscoring the seriousness of the situation when he says “We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”

While the physical tactics employed by Reagan are important in successfully presenting his message, the ideas and words he used are what truly immortalized the speech. His tone of unwavering patriotism  was very well accepted by his audience, and even though there never was a President Goldwater, this sort of rhetoric is undoubtedly one of the most key reasons why Reagan would become so popular. By employing key speaking tactics and appealing to the emotions of the listeners, the future president was able to successfully convey his message and capture the country’s attention.

In the Wall Street Journal article, “Studies Show that Studies are Bunk,” author Andy Kessler raises some interesting points regarding the use of statistics in our daily lives. Kessler asserts that we blindly trust these studies because they are promoted by popular scientists and political influencers who seek to demonstrate broader points about society. In my opinion, this is an interesting and important argument to hear, especially when it seems newspaper readers and cable news viewers are constantly being bombarded by unchallenged studies and statistics that work to prove one point or another to the audience. Because these numbers are found and heard regularly without question, I do think Kessler raises a number of interesting points regarding their sometimes questionable validity, as well as why our interpretations of even the most correct science can be problematic.

Image from https://journals.sagepub.com/home/sss

The first main point I found interesting in the article is that many of the studies reviewed by another group were unable to be replicated or reapplied. This is very significant to me because it shows that not only are some of these studies a little off, but some are at least mostly, if not totally, inaccurate. When looking at research for my paper, I will be sure now to see how many times different studies have been conducted in order to see if the results could be reproduced.

Additionally, Kessler presents times information was repeatedly discredited or contradicted and still used in order to prove a point about society. He gives the example of Hillary Clinton presenting outdated statistics about the supposed inherent biases found in everyone, a case he presents in as problematic. The idea of politicians or influencers being dishonest is nothing new, but the article shows how even the most inaccurate or misleading information can be presented and accepted by many without question. This is important to take into account as I prepare my speech and research paper, with understanding the context in which some of these statistics are given being nearly as important as the numbers themselves. What agendas may be furthered by the statistics I use is something I need to keep in mind, especially when dealing with something as controversial as firearm ownership.

Image from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/2/17050610/guns-shootings-studies-rand-charts-maps

Throughout “Studies Show that Studies are Bunk,” the author furthers his stance on unreliable statistics through pointing to the possibilities of human error and how they are often unable to be replicated. Kessler also provides several high-profile examples of the use of false of outdated statistics, furthering the idea that the phrase “studies show” is a dangerously unquestioned phrase. While the use of numbers and data is helpful in making a paper appear more scientific, I will be sure to strive towards using studies that can be replicated in an attempt to minimize potential misinformation.

Throughout human history, people’s opinions on anything from products to ideas tend change over time. These societal transitions are especially prevalent in today’s age of information and hyper-connected societies. In the United States, there never seems to be a shortage of heated cultural debates for people to be up in arms about, however, few are able to rival the intense controversy surrounding firearms. For my paradigm shift projects, I plan to examine the American gun culture, and the drastic changes it and the overall country have undergone to arrive at the political and social conflicts we see today. The shift in America’s understanding of firearms has spurred immeasurable change in the day to day life of everyone, a phenomenon I feel is more than deserving of this sort of analysis.

Guns seized by the LAPD (Image fromhttps://laist.com/2019/05/09/gun_seizure_LAPD_Holmby_Hills.php)

For my project, I plan to examine mainly changes we as a country have seen in the gun culture within the past century, specifically from 1960s onward. While this will be the target area of analysis for the bulk of my projects, I will more than likely touch upon the significance of firearm ownership throughout America’s developmental history, such as settling the frontier, the World Wars, and any number of other events. The focus of my analysis of shifting gun culture will be to analyze how demographic changes, lifestyle changes, and tragedies, such as mass shootings, have all contributed to redefining gun ownership to the point where it now seemingly falls on partisan lines.

AR-15 Sporting Rifle
(Image from https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15)

I believe the changes in American gun culture need to be examined in order to understand how the debate over firearm ownership has transformed into such a heated, personal topic. Both sides view any sort of yielding on the issue as an attack on their values or lifestyles, making it important for individuals on both sides to understand what exactly has spurred these sorts of extreme emotions on the topic. Gun ownership in the United States has always been a defining cultural feature of this country, and it is now undeniable that it has changed forever. As calls for more regulation increase across the country, I plan to indicate the significance of these gun control advocates and their effects on the broader societal understanding of firearms, as well as the impact lobbyists from both sides have had. Through my research on the issue, I plan to be able to outline key factors and events that have affected America’s gun culture, and how the paradigm shift we see today may progress in the future.