9/11 Essay

Bush and Chomsky use different methods of rhetoric and different tones to get their points across to the audience. Chomsky uses harsh language and is very straightforward with his points, while Bush has a more uplifting tone which helps the audience engage with the topic. Bush is writing his speech only a couple of days after the event had occurred and wants to present the topic in a calm manner without scaring the public. He uses anaphoras when he thanks the public, helping them understand that they also have a part of bringing the country back together after the attack and finding a way to stop terrorism, “eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows” (Bush 5).  Chomsky, on the other hand, is writing about the event ten years after it happened, so he is harsher with his ideas and believed that Osama should have gotten a trial.

According to Chomsky, the actions by the United States constitute “American exceptionalism”, which is the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations. The US, after capturing bin Laden, killed him, and threw him into the water. Chomsky believes that he deserved a trial and an autopsy, whether he was a terrorist or not. If Osama was given a trial, Chomsky explains that we would have known for sure who committed the attack and who was innocent. It was an act based on American exceptionalism because America is accepting the acts from the laws.  Chomsky gives the example of what would have happened if the Iraqis were the ones who had assassinated Bush and dumped his body in the Atlantic. They would have done it after proper burial rights, which did not happen for bin Laden. In his case, the American’s violated the law by not giving him a fair trial. A few days before the assassination of bin Laden, Orlando Bosch, a terrorist, was granted a “presidential pardon by Bush over the objections of the Justice department” (Chomsky 6).  This trial did not also follow the laws of a fair trial.

In Bush’s speech, Bush tells the public that the US will pursue nations and will give every nation the option to choose the side of the terrorists or the side of the Americans. Every nation that supports terrorism will be considered their enemy (Bush 5). Unlike Chomsky, Bush doesn’t really go into details with what actually happened or if their actions were wrong. He wants to keep everyone supporting the government so continues to talk about what they will be doing to stop terrorism altogether. Bush also mentions how he isn’t going against any group as a whole but just terrorism. He calls it the “world’s fight” and says how everyone needs to work together to bring terrorism down.  The American exceptionalism entitled us to start a war and was practiced because Americans accepted the acts from the laws. They created laws that would sometimes not be enforced and was also accepted if it wasn't enforced. 

i rlly think lang is like dvlving

Technology has become a big part of our lives in today’s world and as a result, it has affected the way we speak and communicate. For example, teens and even some adults nowadays use shorthand methods and words such as “brb” or “gtg, ill ttyl”. From looking at this example and the warnings from authors, the conclusion can be made that language is devolving.

            George Orwell, in Politics and the English Language, explains how, “…the writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not” (Orwell 2). Often times, writers may have and even students may have concepts that they want to portray but cannot get their word across. They just speak the language and don’t think about what they are actually speaking or what meaning the words have. Orwell also explains how many metaphors have been twisted out of their original meaning, often for us to understand (Orwell 3). Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, described how when Lincoln and Douglas would debate for hours upon hours, the audience would not be lost but instead would respond to the debates with applause. On the other hand, not that many people would be as engaged into the debates as they were while Lincoln and Douglas were debating.

            According to Orwell, language has become very vague so others can understand. Language has devolved to fit our needs in the 21^st century, where almost everything is done in the form of technology. Shorthand versions are being used to quickly communicate and while communication is still going on, what is being said isn’t really being thought about. The telegraph had allowed more people to communicate. Neil Postman describes how people had started to write about irrelevant public events that were happening all around the world. Photography has also become a language, according to Postman. He describes photography as, “…a language that speaks only in particularities…unlike words and sentences, the photograph does not present to us an idea or concept about the world” (Postman 72). Photos created another way to communicate instead of communicating with words. Words weren’t required to describe pictures since the image had a set meaning to what it was trying to represent. Television has also led to the devolving of language. Advertisements try and use fewer words and more pictures so it is appealing to the public. As time went on, more shorthand versions of communication were developed so the public would often get stuck while talking to someone in person and would have to think about what they were saying.

 

Works Cited

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

Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. N.p.: n.p., 1946. Web. 27 Aug. 2015.