President Obama's State of the Union Address

President Obama’s State of the Union Address was average, in my opinion, until the last seven minutes. Obama went over and mentioned approximately twenty one policies in his speech, which ran a little over an hour. Audience members were seen at various moments throughout the speech wearing different buttons on their jackets or tops. Some of these buttons were worn in honor of unifying Congressmen and women under the party of “problem solvers”. This was a clear statement that these people wanted to participate in actual voting and policy making instead of the usual ineffective bickering fueled by divisions on party lines. The other pin was a green ribbon honoring the victims of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The way that Obama addressed both of these issues was interesting, showing his diverse speaking abilities and highlighting overt and covert methods of broaching a subject matter.

            After almost every policy point Obama brought up, he mentioned that this wasn’t in effect yet due to the lack of decision making in Congress. Weeks before his address, the entire nation showed its displeasure with congress and gave them their lowest approval rate ever at seventeen percent. When the country’s finances were about to push the nation over the “fiscal cliff”, Starbucks baristas wrote “#cometogether” on everyone’s coffee cups, sending a message to congress that the members needed to come together for the good of the country. After the election, a magazine cover even depicted congress as a group of crying infants.    

            This message was definitely received by Obama, as he peppered his speech with tiny insults directed at Congress, his immediate audience. One example was when he spoke about the budget saying, “In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn't agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars' worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They'd devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as "the sequester," are a really bad idea. Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits. This ideas is even worse.”

            More phrases that were much more indirect with blame were thrown at Congress such as, “And I know that you want these job-creating projects in your districts. I've seen you all at the ribbon-cuttings”, Let's prove that there is no better place to do business than the United States of America. And let's start right away”, “Take a vote, and send me that bill. Right now, overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home. What's holding us back?”. By posing issues in a way that put the ball in Congresses proverbial court, Obama effectively strengthens his ethos by making it appear as if he has done everything that he needed to on his end but Congress is dragging his process down.

            While the speech was really a “let’s throw the blame off of me” speech for over fifty minutes, the last seven minutes of the speech turned the address from ordinary to unusual but effective. When it came time to introduce the people who were present as guests, many families from Newtown were represented along with policemen who had taken gunshot wounds on duty and, possibly the most deliberately placed couple being the parents of the young girl who was shot one week after singing at the president’s inauguration. All of a sudden, an issue that hadn’t come up (but that everyone was waiting for) was on the table in a big way. With this representative set of people looking on, Obama challenged Congress as to why these people who has endured such hardship were not being dealt with. Obama used the phrase “they deserve a simple vote”, effectively simplifying the process of a congressional vote and throwing the onus on others once again. This unique blend of pathos and ethos was a smart choice on his part, as he acknowledged the problem, related his ideas and proximity to the problem to the audience, and then directed the blame and grief that these people in the box seats felt onto that same audience, declaring (in context) that by failing to get “simple” propositions and votes out of the system that Congress could not deal with something that was such an issue in the country today.

            The unique blend of ethos and pathos in the speech lead many listeners to feel even worse about congress and the job that they are doing in Washington. By framing the votes as “simple” and common sense, Obama effectively and strategically used Congress to shift the blame off of himself. Instead of dealing with these issues immediately, he went campaigning the next day, furthering his plan to appeal to the people and not Congress. He showed the public that he does not answer to Congress, and is not pleased with the job that they are doing. While I agree and disagree with various policies, I certainly agree that Obama is a strategic and gifted speaker who realizes that the manipulation of rhetoric can place him in an authoritative, superior light, leaving nothing for Congress to defend them with. The context of the speech put listeners into a frame of mind that Congress is the reason certain things are not done, that Congress is hold back progress for the country, and that Congress is ineffective when it comes to national policies. This throws the light onto Congress while Obama campaigns and tries to improve his public image. His strategy increased is ethos (unless you were analyzing it) and seemed to bring in the real pathos after he was done going through policy, highlighting his presidential side instead of his fatherly side.

Inauguration Criticism

President Barak Obama’s second inauguration speech was watched by over one million people. As a rhetorical critic, one using the Aristotelian method of critical analysis needs to look at several factors. Was the speech forensic, epideictic, or deliberative? How was his delivery? How did he use ethos, pathos, and logos? There is a lot to analyze about the speech critically. My main questions while listening were what he would bring up in terms of national issues, what he would mention from his first term, and if he would insult the republican party or throw any insults in to his speech.

            I found Obama’s speech to be epideictic and deliberative. It was epideictic (dealing with the present, uses forms of praise or blame, seeks to honor or cast dishonor) because  he was addressing his present state as a president who had completed one term and is planning his second term. I think his rhetoric showed an urge to honor not only what he did in his first term but America itself. He praised what a strong nation America is and conveyed his sense of honor in leading the country. The speech was deliberative (addresses the future, seeks to establish expediency, urgency, or harmfulness by proposing a course of action) because Obama addressed the future by mentioning things he would like to improve upon or situations he would like to fix in his second term and alluding to the possible course of action that may start very soon toward achieving his newer goals.

            Obama’s delivery was more plain style for more common people. There were only two sets of references that the common public might not understand. He made a reference to “Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall”, referring to various sites of human rights protests. Only someone knowledgeable in the area and American history would understand the references. His speech did send a message of good will, however, it was not as inspirational as it could have been.

            Obama’s logos (logic) was strong. His basic argument outlining his speech and supporting his policy arguments was the fact that America’s constitution is great, and we live in a great land. The fact is, however, that modern America needs to adjust to the current times. This was evident as a theme when he spoke about some of the things he plans to do in his second term. This current attitude mixed with hi policy ideas ended up being some of his argument. Things that he brought up like equal pay and gay rights should be rights as human beings, and our government needs to catch up with that. He said at one point, “While these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing…For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting along than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias”. He acknowledged that the country has differences, but threw a jab at the republican party’s idea of debate as making fun of people, which answered one of my questions.

            Most of Obama’s issues such as poverty, the deficit, global warming, gay rights, women’s equality, illegal alien voting rights, immigration, clean energy, education, and having a greater sense of unity as a nation all fell back to the modern America theme. His argument relied more on what we should expect as humans rather than citizens, and as people who hope to see the next generation have a great country to live in rather than people who want everything fixed for themselves no matter what the consequences to future generations would end up being. This answered another one of my questions about his speech, what he would bring up for the next term.

            Obama’s rhetoric was inspired to confirm the faith for those who voted in him and show those who did not that he is capable of handling the position. His style was geared toward mass appeal, which he used. As a critic however, I can see that the theme of unity was so tightly woven throughout the speech that whenever Obama said “we” it really meant “I”. Obama appeared relaxed, comfortable, and authoritative on camera. He only swallowed a few words, and he has always had a problem with the word “to”, but otherwise he has very good speech habits.

            Obama used ethos in a verbal and non-verbal way. He exuded confidence non-verbally and established ethos through confidence, his knowledge of history, accomplishments, and his intelligent and dynamic speaking habits. Part of this credibility was mentioned in something else I wondered if he would bring up, his first term. He, very early in the speech, mentioned the end of the war, possible economic recovery, and respect for the soldiers.

            The way he embraced pathos was a bit heavy for my taste. I found his mention of the “little girl” example relatable, but his mention of multiple incidents of children being killed was a bit heavy. It could have been summed up with that fact that there is a violence issue in the US. Obama put his emotions into seizing the moment and making the nation’s problems his problems.

            Obama’s speech utilized all of Aristotle’s tenants of logos, pathos, and ethos. From examining his rhetoric, it can be seen that as an orator, Obama is very good at speaking and getting his point across. His use of logos, pathos, and ethos was convincing, but not as convincing as it could have been. Overall, the speech was appropriate for a second term in office, but it could have been more dynamic in content, he could have made stronger points.

Rhianna and Chris Brown: How their reunion effects her career

Several years ago the world was shocked when pictures of a bruised and beaten Rhianna went viral. The damage allegedly caused by then boyfriend singer Chris Brown, was the result of a fight in a car. Rhianna flagged down an oncoming car while walking barefoot in people’s yards after escaping Brown. The police photographed her injuries and a trial was soon underway. A restraining order was passed to keep Brown away from Rhianna and the two ceased contact for a period of time. During their separation, rumors that they were back together were constantly in the media. Eventually, Rhianna dropped the restraining order and resumed contact with Brown.

            While Rhianna’s career was soaring during this time, Brown’s was failing. He did his mandated community service and anger management courses, but he still had outbursts of violent behavior such as throwing chairs out of Good Morning America windows on to the street below and getting into fights at clubs. More recent behavior shows that now, years later, Rhianna is still very close with Brown even though he continues his erratic behavior.

            They recently recorded a song together called “Ain’t Nobody’s Business” about whether or not they are back together. The answer, however, has become obvious. Rhianna did an interview with Oprah where she confessed she would always love Brown. Shortly after that, pictures of the couple were released on their personal Instagram accounts showing them smoking marijuana and spending the holidays together. The pair is officially back together, attending award shows together and flaunting their relationship to the public and the paparazzi. Since the pair has gotten back together, Brown’s community service records have come under fire as possibly false, and he has gotten into yet another club fight.

            What does this mean for Rhianna? As a woman going back to an abusive man, she has been heavily criticized for the image she is displaying to people, especially young girls, who look up to her. People are mad at her, criticizing her choices and telling her she is a bad person. Companies that have recently done deals with Rhianna, such as MAC Cosmetics, are being questioned as to what they think about signing her since she has gone back to Brown. On her last birthday, a magazine company tweeted her saying, “Be safe.”

            Oddly enough, Brown’s career now seems to be doing slightly better after his reunion with the star. While it cannot be denied that Brown is a talented singer and dancer, the fact that he is a violent, dangerous, and abusive person seems to have faded into the background. He is generally described as rude and a mean person, but people have turned to inappropriate jokes to deal with his image instead of flat out boycotting his music or products. It seems as if no one is taking a stand against him.

            It had to be difficult for Rhianna to go through this with the world watching her. She gave fans hope though when on her second to last album she released songs about women empowerment and even one about abuse. Her music transitioned from dance hits to songs about darker, more serious matters. Many saw her more violent image as a coping mechanism. Rhianna’s song “Man Down” is the story of a woman who shoots a man who touched her inappropriately (it is implied that the woman is raped).vSome of the lyrics are, “

I didn’t mean to end his life

I know it wasn't right

I can't even sleep at night

Can't get it off my mind

I need to get out of sight

Before I end up behind bars

What started out as a simple altercation

Turned into a real sticky situation

Me just thinking on the time that I'm facing

Makes me wanna cry

Cause I didn't mean to hurt him

Could've been somebody's son

And I took his heart when

I pulled out that gun

Oh mama mama mama

I just shot a man down

In central station

In front of a big ol' crowd

Oh Why Oh Why

Oh mama mama mama

I just shot a man down

In central station”

From songs like this, listeners can see that Rhianna was attempting to deal with her situation with Brown in some sort of manner, but her reunion with him shows that she may be a victim of battered woman syndrome. If Brown had released a song about their breakup so close to the event, it certainly wouldn’t have been seen as a coping mechanism, but instead most likely a disrespectful jab at women.

            Rhianna confessed to Oprah that she will always love Brown, and this may be an indicator that she needs help. After the attack, Rhianna’s music became considerably darker and included a higher sexual content than before. She seems to identify with the “bad” persona, making her instagram name “badgirlriri” and posting pictures of her smoking marijuana and putting herself in dangerous situations, namely being around Brown.

            The gender roles of these two stars have to be considered when looking at the situation. Chris Brown is viewed as a bad boy, and a disrespectful person. He should be called a violent, dangerous, manipulative man. He even has a tattoo of a battered woman’s face on his neck. Rhianna is viewed as a tough, “I’ll do what I want” personality and in many eyes as a girl making a mistake by going back to Brown. She should be looked at as a woman making a dangerous decision and setting a bad example for others while opening herself up to abuse and manipulation.

            If a woman hit a man, many would say she is tough or at worst crazy. The term “abusive” would be less likely to come up. When a man hits a woman, abusive is one of the first terms brought up.

            Brown has been seen as “troubled” but still commercially appealing. Many women still love him and buy his albums. Female artists have a much harder time coming back into the lime light after a public fall out (think Britney Spears). His career was failing, but he turned it around with some new lyrics and impressive dance moves.

            Why is Brown’s career still thriving? One argument is that he is a man. Male figures are not viewed as much as role models in the hiphop/rap industry as women are in the pop industry. If Rhianna had a melt down after this happened, got arrested, or assaulted someone herself she would be blamed as a bad role model driven to the edge by fame. Brown gets away with being a “bad boy” and isn’t seen as any sort of model. While part of this is furthered by the stigma of rap and r&b, it must also be noted that those genres are male dominated.

            The female and male entertainer models in today’s society are stricter than one would think. Rhianna is taking a risk by singing about abuse and sexuality, and Brown is using her star to reinforce his own fallen fame. The fact that the wrong person is being picked on in this union (Rhianna) and that people are actually rooting for this relationship to last sheds a disturbing light on gender roles when it comes to fame.

            There is an entire group of people out there posting blogs and pictures rooting for “Chrisanna” (their celebrity couple name) to make love last. Some ignorant people are comparing their love story to Romeo and Juliet. What they don’t seem to realize is that Romeo and Juliet is a  tragedy in which six people, including the lovers, die. Law and Order, Special Victims Unit, just did an episode that was blatantly based on the stars relationship. In all of these models, the woman is just so overcome with her love for the bad boy that she is unable to do the right thing. It would take someone like Rhianna to come out and use her star power for a good cause, staying away from Brown, to end the stigma of a helpless, love-torn woman. Until a prominent female figure takes that step, it may be easier for women to fall back into abusive relationships.

Women in Power

In life there is always a balance of power. Typically men have been in the more powerful positions in business, government, and general commerce. Men have been viewed was traditional leaders, but today shows a picture of leadership that makes room for women. Women leaders like Hillary Clinton, Mary McAleese, Tarja Halonen, Meg Whitman, and Marissa Mayer have fought hard battles to become leaders in the respective fields of government and finance, creating a path for others to follow.

            Even in 2013, there are only twenty one women acting as CEO’s of fortune 500 companies. There are only seventy six women in Congress, and only seventeen in the Senate. Compared to the number of men in these positions, women are outnumbered almost five to one.

            The question is why. Why are men still paid more than women? Why are men still in many positions of leadership that could just as easily be filled by a woman? The answer is a combination of prejudice and tradition that relies on old stereotypes.

            I see this frequently. My mother is a woman in power, a site administrator that oversees hundreds of employees in the government. She has fought hard for her position, and received some negative feedback in from men who were not happy with her in charge. There is nothing wrong with her leadership, her job performance, or her policy. She receives some negative feedback simply because of her gender.

            Common retorts of “why should I listen to a woman?” and “what does this b*tch know” are heard more often than is truly called for. People like my mother have to out-perform men in the same positions in order to receive the same jobs and prestige. For a woman to occupy a leadership position, her qualifications must put her highly above her male competitors.

            We see this on a large scale with Hillary Clinton. As Secretary of State, she took on a job many men have failed at, and for the most part succeeded. She may run for U.S. president again, and she will always have a foot in politics. For her to receive these positions though, she had to do better than many men, even possibly her husband in some cases.

            Stereotypes of women that stop them from receiving jobs are hysteria, moodiness, life problems, and a general assumption of a lack of intelligence. Today, it is more common for a woman to get a PhD than it is for them to occupy managing or leadership roles. This juxtaposition honestly makes no sense, as many academics are also qualified leaders. It takes a certain charisma and leadership style to teach on the college level or present academic research in a knowledgeable, authoritative way.

            Many professional women still have families, and they do not let one profession get in the way of their professions. Men are often fathers, and less work is placed upon them to rear children. Women usually have to be able to do two jobs: full time workforce member and household caretaker. The idea that a woman will fly off the handle and lose control of her emotions is completely unfounded. Women actually express emotion better than men do.

            More women in leadership will excel someday. One day we will reach equal pay for equal service and earn the respect that is deserved. Unfortunately, in order to achieve these goals women will have to break down prejudices and stereotypes that have existed for generations. Men should be wary, and far more accepting, of women leaders because it is happening and soon the very man saying that the idea is ridiculous will be unseated by a woman.