9/11 Discussion

            September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center was attacked by a radical group of terrorists, al-Qaeda.  George W. Bush, the president at the time of the attack, gave a speech nine days after the event.  His use of language and diction contributes to the speech’s effect on the population and heightens his promise to Americans.  Ten years after the attack, Noam Chomsky wrote an essay contradicting Bush’s actions and condemning the United States to “American exceptionalism” which is very much accurate.

            George W. Bush uses rhetoric after the attack of 9/11 through his descriptive words and tone of voice.  In the beginning of his speech, Bush uses ‘we’ to address the American population instead of talking directly from his point of view.  His use of this pronoun institutes a feeling of inclusiveness and unity between the American people which contributes to his uplifting and reassuring tone.  The encouraging tone follows in, “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.  Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done,” (Bush 1).  I have found that uplifting attitudes towards events spur more support than violent and accusing tones.  I believe Bush begins and finishes with a reassuring attitude to get the support of the population and make everyone feel safe and secure.  Bush uses normal diction, along with regular vocabulary in order to address as many people as possible in the United States.  His speech also includes many anaphoras to give it a strong and powerful message.  Later on in his speech, Bush includes many facts about the terrorists involved in the attack to inform citizens and to make it known that the United States will stop them.  Bush’s promise to Americans is that, “every terrorist group of global reach will be found, stopped, and defeated,” (Bush 4).  He supports his promise through his answering of common questions about what to do and what al-Qaeda is about.  Bush is very stern and commanding towards the terrorist regimes by using harsh language which help his reassuring attitude towards America that we will not be attacked again.  All of these aspects of Bush’s speech contribute to his reassuring and later commanding tone and attitude to support his promise to Americans.

            Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, has a very different point of view than Bush and is critical of the United States and its actions during the years following 9/11.  The United States is built on democracy and freedoms.  These are the main practices we promote and use throughout history and in the present.  However, Chomsky makes a point on how our country is at times a hypocrite and follows “American exceptionalism.”  Made clear by Bush, the United States will attack any government or country that supports terrorism or harbors terrorists.  However, Florida allowed Orlando Bosch, an international terrorist, to live in the state, supported by the first George Bush who pardoned Bosch from any punishments.  According to George W. Bush, “the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists,” should be revoked (Chomsky).  Florida remained unscathed even though it violated the rule of not harboring terrorists.  Similarly, the assassination of Osama bin Laden violated international law by not allowing the terrorist a fair trial (a right the United States supports greatly).  If the circumstances are in American favor, like killing bin Laden, our country will not follow law and do whatever it takes to accomplish our goal. Finally, the United States committed the, “supreme international crime—the crime of aggression,” (Chomsky).  Due to Bush invading Iraq with armed forces, America violated law and began a war because it was in America’s best interest to do so.  The United States takes part and exploits “American exceptionalism” because it allows us to accomplish our goals, even though we don’t abide by our own values. 

Bush, George W. “President George W. Bush’s Address to Congress and the Nation of Terrorism”. 20 Sep. 2001. Address.

Chomsky, Noam. Was There an Alternative? Huffington Post, 6 Sep. 2011. Web. 10 Sep. 2015. 

Language is Devolving

In our 21st society, everyone relies on technology in their daily life. One form of this technology, is in telephones.  When people text on their phones, they do not use the regular, proper form of language.  They instead say "u", "ttyl", and "lol".  I have even caught myself typing "u" and not using formal language when emailing a teacher and writing essays.  Through this incorrect way of communicating language, language itself is devolving into acronyms and less thought provoking speak. 

When speaking, the younger generation now puts their thoughts across using "like" and finishing with "and stuff" because they cannot form complete thoughts as compared to the older generation who think before they speak to ensure they are saying the right thing.

Ever since the introduction of the telegraph and photograph, society has allowed language to devolve and has enjoyed this change.  “The telegraph,” according to Neil Postman, “introduced on a large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence” (Postman 65).  The information the telegraph brought was disconnected. Because the information had nothing to do with them, the information had no meaning and no impact on people so they couldn’t act on anything. People began to speak and converse about pointless topics.  If the topics aren’t important, why talk the same way about unimportant topics, as the important topics?  I believe that since the information people constituted as their daily “news” was not important, the people began to care less about how they spoke and let their language degrade.  Some examples could be the before mentioned such as “like”, “um”, and adjectives like “awesome” instead of words that conveyed real emotion and thought.

Soon after the telegraph, the photograph accompanied news articles and information. It brought blips of information that weren’t connected to each other so the material was fragmented and incoherent. (Sound familiar). The photograph could not capture any idea or abstraction, so discussion could not be made, and therefore nothing could be learned.  The new forms information was being presented in, hindered societal progress.  Without discussion and communication, language does not matter.  So, when the photograph did not allow discussion, language was used less frequently and slightly lost its importance, making it devolve.

 Postman also elaborates on how education on television is degrading the English language. The television education philosophy states how sequence and continuity are not important, nothing should be remembered, and discussion/reason should be excluded.  These teachings are the opposite of what language should be: sequential and connected, memorable, and should have reason and discussion.  Through education on t.v., like Sesame Street, nothing is really taught and children do not learn anything.  Instead, they believe that the fundamentals of language are actually not important, so real language is lost and not used.

Hopefully with English classes in the future, more informational books, and the realization of what is happening to language, it stops devolving and takes a turn in the other direction for the benefit of society.

Works Cited

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Group, 1985. Print.