cletus-the-slack-jawed-yokel to his wife on tonight's "the simpsons" (after pimping out the kids to krusty for a variety show):
"clarice, you're supposed to be in iraq stopping 9/11!"
what sort of rhetorical appeal is this? and does it work?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have a response to this prompt, but until then I just read a devastatingly candid op-ed piece in the NYT, by Bob Herbert, titled "Lift the Curtain," that is related to this post. It's pretty short, 735 words, but here is an excerpt followed by the link if one wishes to read it:
"...Have we forgotten that while most Americans have sacrificed zilch for this war, the mostly uncomplaining soldiers and marines are being sent into the combat zones for two, three and four tours? Multiple combat tours are an unconscionable form of Russian roulette that heightens the chances of a warrior being killed or maimed.
In the old days, these troops would have been referred to as cannon fodder. However you want to characterize them now, their casually unfair treatment is an expression of the belief that they are expendable."
http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_docid=117BF48CF3A98A48&p_docnum=3&p_queryname=4&p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated4&p_nbid=N4DG47DDMTE3MzQ1ODYxNy40OTI0NTE6MToxNToxMzEuMTkzLjE1NC4xNjA
If the link doesn't work just go to the library homepage, under "quick links/short cuts" select "electronic journals, newspapers, magazines," scroll down to the New York Times "2000 to present" archive, and then just search "Bob Herbert" or the piece's title.
This is definitely, with a small "d," an appeal to pathos: "9/11" is a largely emotional issue and conflating it with Iraq attempts to provide justification for, and shield rational analysis from, the latter. By invoking "9/11" it's understood that whatever is done in its name, such as invading, destroying, and occupying Iraq, must be 'good' and that we should just unquestioningly accept what our leaders, or Cletus, happen to tell us.
Briefly, this example of rhetoric is nothing short of fascist Republican propaganda. Iraq, as was known prior, during, and after invasion, had nothing to do with "9/11," had no "WMD," was not planning to acquire "WMD," and was even a de facto ally of ours in the region. "Spreading democracy" and "liberating the Iraqi people" are even more absurd justifications for for reigning cluster-bomb tyranny over Iraq because there are arguably far more oppressively brutal dictatorships in countries whose people actually had something to do with "9/11," such as Saudi Arabia, where 14 of the 19 hijackers were native. Or Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, but then again, is it really the U.S.'s job, even though it's an ideologic contradiction, to "spread freedom and democracy" by the missile?
Post a Comment