1. Topics
I thought it'd be difficult to come up with grammar/syntax/writing topics to blog, but, fortunately, that hasn't been too hard. Most ideas I get are common errors I see when I edit. A distant second is from conversations with others--either they have a question, I have a question, or I notice an odd mannerism in their speech.
However, I recently signed up for Google Web Tools, which is a fascinating resource for tracking external links to your blog, diagnostics to check the "health" of your blog and ensure that you find your niche in the Google rankings, and--my favorite--top search queries. These tell you the Google searches in which your blog appears as well as the position. (So say you get a stat that says "ellipsis in julius caesar 7" -- that means that in the search "ellipsis in julius caesar" your site was the seventh one on the list of results.)
Anywho, I signed up for Google Web Tools and have been going through search queries for ideas. I figure since people are already searching for these topics, I may as well write on them.
Outside of those three sources, I also recycle some posts from another journal I keep. These don't necessary have to deal with English or grammar or language, but they're there, and I like to vary the content up once in a while.
2. Getting the Blog Noticed
At first I gauged traffic by the number of comments, which have been very, very, very, very few. But recently I discovered Google Analytics, which has been a great help monitoring my traffic. I only have a few days' worth of stats, so I can't really talk at length about how much it's helped my site, but so far, I'm very excited with the possibilities. At least I now know that some people read this thing!
Another useful tool has been the AddThis button. Again, I only discovered it recently, but already I like it. Instead of adding six trillion digg/delicious/technorati/etc. buttons, you just add one handy little bar that includes all of them and more.
Finally, I use Ping-o-matic to notify search engines when I update the blog. Google Analytics show an increase in traffic when I do this, so I can only assume it helps.
2.5. Writing a blog.
This sort of goes with 2 because content is probably the number-one thing that draws people to your blog. At least it is for the blogs I read.
Mostly, I've tried to copy the format of the blogs I enjoy, particularly Marginal Revolution, which, aside from being one of the (if not the most) popular econ blogs out there, also makes a really good read.
The posts are short, the topics varied and interesting, and--most importantly--it's updated frequently. If not hourly, then at least daily. Another thing I've noticed is that the post titles are pretty direct. That's useful for a number of reasons--not only does it give the reader a quick idea of what the post's about, it also helps Google identify the content and make sure it's listed under the appropriate search query.
Finally, I've learned (or at least am in the process of learning) not to be clever. This is a great point Gretchen Rubin made in a post on her blog Happiness Project, and it applies not just to blogs but to all writing. The best writing, especially for blogs, is brief and direct. Make your point, explain it if you have to, back it up, and move on.
3. Future ideas
I don't make any money from this blog, but I plan to keep doing it. It helps my writing and is enjoyable, but I'd really like more feedback. If you're reading this, please leave a post with any suggestions you have or topics you'd like to see covered.
what we've learned from blogging
Political Rhetoric in Julius Caesar
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears
Anthony first establishes common ground. Even though, class-wise, he ranks far above his plebian audience, he emphasizes their similarities—rich or poor, noble or not, we’re all Romans—and downplays his own status.
The ordering of “Friends, Romans, countrymen” is not arbitrary, either—if he had opened the address with “Romans or countrymen,” it would have sounded more like a pre-battle pep-talk. By opening with “friends,” however, he establishes a close connection with the audience before going on to cite their broader relationship as “Romans,” and finally “countrymen.”
Lastly, Anthony further humbles himself by imploring the audience to listen instead of telling them. All of this contrasts with the more regal and authoritative speech Brutus gave earlier, too, which makes Anthony come across as a man of the people—or whatever the Roman equivalent of Joe Six-pack is.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar.
Having established common ground by noting their shared heritage, Anthony now assures the audience that he’s of the same mind—that is, against Caesar and for the conspirators—but he raises some doubt with the observation that the bad lives on while the good is ignored.
... The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it...
Anthony starts to move in for the kill, first patronizing Brutus, casting further doubt over Caesar’s guilt, and ending on the brutality of Caesar’s assassination. All the while Anthony never directly acknowledges Brutus’s part in the assassination; instead, he subtly alludes to it and answers the charge of Caesar’s ambition by emphasizing the punishment.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral ...
And here we see the first mention of the speech’s most famous phrase: For Brutus is an honourable man. Already it sounds patronizing, and Anthony repeats it after answering charge after charge after charge of Caesar’s “ambition” to question not just Brutus’s intentions, but the intentions of all the conspirators. This is the catchphrase of Anthony’s speech, and every time he uses it, it reinforces the goodness of Caesar and questions the motives of the conspirators.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man…
Anthony now begins to answer the charges of Caesar’s ambition with counter examples. This first one—that Caesar was a just and faithful friend—is not very convincing, as Caesar could be both a good friend as well as ambitious, but Anthony’s just getting started, so he builds up Caesar’s character first and moves on to better examples later.
He also adds, “But Brutus says he was ambitious” to the catchphrase. Why not just say, “See? Caesar wasn’t ambitious—he was a good friend”? Because Anthony’s speech isn’t meant to exonerate Caesar so much as put himself in power. The way he does that is by exonerating Caesar and undermining the public image of Brutus. But since Brutus told Anthony that he can’t directly blame the conspirators in his funeral speech, he gets around it by reiterating the public perception of Brutus’s good character, for which he offers no proof, and contrasting it with Caesar’s, for which he offers concrete examples.
And here again, Brutus is not just Brutus but also a representation of all the conspirators. It’s an effective symbol because it allows the audience to direct their anger at the whole group on one man—who just so happens to be Anthony’s political rival, too.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
Anthony moves on from Caesar as a personal friend to Caesar as a Roman, and this example is carefully chosen. To most folks, Caesar was first and foremost a warrior, and Anthony could just as easily cite one of Caesar’s victories on the battlefield, but he chooses not to associate Caesar with violence here and instead focuses on the spoils of Caesar’s victories. Not only does this omission reinforce Caesar as a good and moral human being, it also adds emphasis to the only act of violence mentioned in the speech—Caesar’s death.
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
And here Anthony combines the two—Caesar as a good friend and Caesar as a good Roman—to portray Caesar as, well, a good friend to all Romans, even—especially—to the unwashed and downtrodden. Anthony also introduces a new layer of sarcasm by mocking this quality before delivering the catchphrase.
Notice too that Anthony’s description of Caesar—first as a friend, then as a Roman, then a countryman—matches the speech’s salutation. Just as Anthony is a friend to all Romans, all countrymen, so too was Caesar.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
Finally, Anthony cites irrefutable proof before laying the catchphrase to rest. Now that that’s out of the way, here come the waterworks.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
This last part of the speech is a tour-de-force of emotion as Anthony appeals to his audience. He doesn’t ask them to mourn for Caesar; he asks them why they don’t mourn. This is the funerary equivalent of asking someone, “Do you still beat your wife?” It presupposes the audience’s sorrow over the death of Caesar, and before they can raise their eyebrows, Anthony falls into emotional frenzy and chastises them:
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…
Appeal to abstraction cuts off any rebuttle and answers the previous question with an implication of Brutus/brutish beasts before Anthony's so beaten down by grief he can say no more:
Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
The rhetorical device used here is Aposiopesis—the speech comes to an abrupt halt as the speaker is overcome by emotion. Like when someone says, “Why I oughta—” or this scene from the Aeneid where Neptune chews out the wind gods:
Audacious winds! from whence
This bold attempt, this rebel insolence?
Is it for you to ravage seas and land,
Unauthoriz'd by my supreme command?
To raise such mountains on the troubled main?
Whom I- but first 't is fit the billows to restrain;
And then you shall be taught obedience to my reign.
Wikiepedia offers a good, contemporary example from Star Wars:
Another modern example occurs in Star Wars: A New Hope in which Darth Vader says of Obi-Wan Kenobi, “I sense something; a presence I have not felt since—”, referencing the events of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.
But Anthony does them all one better: Instead of actually being at a loss for words, he announces his need for pause—calling even more attention to the "anguish" he suffers from Caesar’s death.
From the Archives 10-12-2007
Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change win the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
A few thoughts:
1. "[B]uild up" is an odd verb to use in this context; it can mean "hype," "puff," and "exaggerate" just as much as "strengthen" or "reinforce."
2. The second clause implicitly assumes that not only does man-made climate change decidedly exist, but that Al Gore and the IPCC know how to counteract it. Despite the overwhelming evidence that it does exist, man-made climate change is still debated among scientists; if the Nobel Prize committee wanted to take sides on a hot issue that has all of Science in agreement, why not give it to Richard Dawkins?
2.5. The Nobel Prize is awarded "for achievements," yet the second clause states that the Prize was given "to lay the foundations for...measures," so this year's Peace Prize is partly a grant, not an award. Therefore, the only "achievement" was making people aware of one side of a controversial topic. Evidently the committee believes it's better to raise awareness of an issue than to resolve it.
3. How does this promote peace?
election day
It being election day and all, we thought this breakdown from last year's Republican debates would be interesting, if not topical:
Stanislaw Ulam once challenged Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson to name one theory in all of the social sciences that was both true and nontrivial. Several years later, Samuelson responded with David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage:
That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that it is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.
We were looking for truthful supporting statements not based on Adages, Common knowledge, or the candidate’s Personal record; in other words, evidence that could be cited (and was done so correctly); indicated something more than a superficial understanding of the issue; relevant; and true.
Unfortunately we quickly found that analyzing the entire 90+ minutes would take much more time than our attention span would allow, so we restricted the sampling to each of the candidate’s answer to the first line of questions, which, if it’s not evident from their responses, concerned the Iraq War.
Of the supporting statements, we defined each as follows:
Adage – a traditional saying expressing a common experience or observation
Common knowledge – the criterion we used for this was news that was both widely known and fairly recent – we tested for the former by confirming that it was headline news on at least three large newsproviders – in this case CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNews; and we tested for the latter by limiting our search to news articles between January 1, 2001, and May 14, 2007.
Personal – i.e. drawn from the candidate’s campaign platform/promises, and/or personal record.
Of course not all statements fell within those three categories, and in fact, very few ever did; the most frequent statements, by far, were those that needed evidence, and which we defined thus:
Assertion – a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.
Speculation – conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise.
And many times the candidates simply offered their opinions:
Opinion – a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
And the rest we classified as rhetorical devices.
Exclamation – an animated or passionate utterance
Rhetorical question – a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply
We've done our best to reread the statements many many times, and we believe our conclusions to be very, even painstakingly, fair. Some classifications may seem out of place, and often Assertions may seem like Opinions may seem like Speculations, etc. So we’ve tried to classify “If…then” and similar statements as Speculations; statements including “I think; I believe; I feel” and so on as Opinions; and the rest, for the most part, as Assertions.
McCain:
- We have to continue because it's not just the Iraqi vital national security interests that are at stake here Assertion; … it's
- If we fail in
- After we lost the war in
- You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda, they'll tell you they want to follow us home. Assertion
- I believe we have a new strategy and a good strategy. Opinion
- Only four of the five brigades that are -- that we need to implement the strategy are there. Assertion
- It's long Assertion; it's hard Assertion; it's tough Assertion; it's difficult. Assertion
- Americans are frustrated because of the mishandling of this war. Assertion
- But our national interests -- the
- I believe the Maliki government has got to improve. Opinion
- They've got to pass certain laws that we all know about. Assertion
- But we must succeed Assertion; we cannot fail Assertion; I will be the last man standing if necessary. Personal
Thompson
- There is no question that the al-Maliki government needs to step up and do what is right.Assertion
- The
- We've lost many individuals -- 3,400 individuals as of today Common knowledge; it's time for the al-Maliki to vote whether or not they want us in the fifth year to stay in their country or whether or not they want us to go home. Assertion
- Secondly, if in fact they do allow the 18 territories, which, geographically defined, allow them to elect their leaders like we elect the 50 governors and 50 legislatures in the United States, they will elect individuals that they would feel -- are comfortable with them, that they are -- feel that they have a stake in their government. Speculation
- And if you split the oil revenues -- one-third to the federal government, one-third to the territories, and one-third to every man, woman and child -- every man, woman and child will feel they have a stake in their government, stake in their country.Speculation; they'll start using that money for peace and for building businesses and making sure they build their country. Assertion
- That's why my plan will work. Assertion; it will win the peace in
Romney
- Well, I'm certainly not going to project failure. Assertion; those kind of circumstances that you would suggest would be projecting failure. Assertion
- It is critical for us to remember that
- There is a global jihadist effort. Assertion
- Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. Assertion
- And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us. Assertion
- And they've come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent. Assertion
- We have to recognize that what we're doing in
- that's why it's important for us to understand that… Assertion; if we were to just walk out precipitously, we could conceivably see the border with Turkey be destabilized by virtue of the Kurdish effort Speculation; …we could have the Iranians take over the Shi'a south Speculation; … you could have al Qaeda play a dominant role among the Sunnis Speculation; you'd have something far worse than Afghanistan on their hands.Assertion
- And so we recognize that it's critical for us to provide the stability to allow a central government to survive and thrive. Assertion
Brownback
- I think we've got to pull together here to win over there. Opinion; I think it is a way for us to pull forward. Opinion
- I mean, we've got far too many divisions in this government here. Assertion
- And we will win if we can pull together. Speculation; we can win the war. Assertion
- I think as well, if you look at it, it's difficult for democracy and particularly for the
- I condemn the statements of Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, saying we've already lost. Personal
- We haven't lost. Assertion
- That's his declaration. Common knowledge; we've got to pull people together here.Assertion
- When we can do that, and when we do that, we will win. Speculation
- The other thing we have to do -- a much more aggressive political solution on the ground in
- That has to take place. Assertion; that's why I've been pushing a three-state, one-country solution where you have a Sunni region, a Shi'a region and a Kurdish state that already exists, within a weak federation. Personal
- That form of political solution aggressively pushed there, without Iraqi politicians going home for the summer but then working through these difficult political problems, can get a solid political solution on the ground there as we pull together to win here. Speculation
Giuliani
- First of all, that isn't exactly what I said. Assertion
- I was talking about the timetable for retreat that the Democrats passed in Congress. Personal; they did something extraordinary and that I've never heard of in the history of war, which is to give your enemy a schedule of how a retreating army is going to retreat. Assertion
- That was irresponsible, highly irresponsible. Assertion
- What the Republicans did, or suggested, I don't think is the right approach either.Opinion
- And I think Senator McCain is correct, these people do want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Opinion
- Fort
- That was a situation in which six Islamic terrorists, who were not directed by al Qaeda but claimed to have been inspired by them, were going to kill our military in cold blood at
- It was a 16-month investigation done by the FBI and the
- But we have to remind ourselves that we are facing an enemy that is planning all over this world, and it turns out planning inside our country, to come here and kill us.Assertion
- And the worst thing to do in the face of that is to show them weakness. Assertion
- I think that we have to understand that we are going to be in
- Our national interests dictate that. Assertion
- We are not going to be removing our troops from the area. Assertion
- We can't, for all the reasons that have been identified here. Assertion
- The question is, in what capacity we will be there and what capacity those troops will be there? Rhetorical question
- Will they be a constabulary force, which I do not believe they should be? Rhetorical question
- Will they be a supporting force for the Iraqi government and for the Iraqi forces themselves, which I believe they should be?Rhetorical question
- The president is the one, in his state of the war message to the nation, that said, "I am establishing a benchmark of November," he said, "and by November, the Iraqi government will be in control of all 18 provinces of
- I believe that that is a good benchmark to set. Opinion
- I will support him in that effort. Personal; I will support our troops while they are in the field in every single way I can. Personal
- That is my responsibility as a member of Congress, by the way. Assertion
- It is not to general the war. Assertion; it is not to micromanage it. Assertion; it is to support the troops that are in harm's way. Assertion
Paul
- But you have to realize that the base of the Republican Party shrunk last year because of the war issue. Assertion
- So that percentage represents less people. Assertion
- If you look at 65 to 70 percent of the American people, they want us out of there.Assertion
- They want the war over. Assertion
- In 19- -- 2002, I offered an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down, and it was -- nobody voted for the war.Personal
- And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, and if we should go to war, the Congress should declare it. Personal
- We don't go to war like we did in
- And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in.Personal
- Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into
- A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. Assertion
- And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. Assertion
- And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run."
- He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics,"; he changed his policy there. Assertion
- We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan. Assertion
Hunter
- Well, Chris, because the Iraqi forces that were running a couple of years ago in places like Fallujah are standing and fighting. Assertion
- We've got to get all 129 Iraqi battalions into a three- or four-month military operation -- most of them have been in there by now -- and then we rotate them into the battlefield and we rotate out the American heavy combat forces. Assertion
- But you've hit the nail on the head. Assertion
- One of us is going to be a commander in chief in a few months with a tough military operation and situation to deal with. Assertion
- I've been the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for the last four years. Personal
- I served in uniform in
- My son has done two tours in
- I can look at the American people and say, we are in this together. Personal
- I think the other guys ought to lay out their credentials to be commander in chief. Opinion
- A president had better be open to listening to the generals who are going to lead people into battle and put their lives on the line. Assertion
- That's one of the problems we face now, Chris. Assertion
- We listen to the diplomats Assertion; we listen to the civilians Assertion; we listen to the people running the Defense Department -- more worried about the budget than worried about the blood that might be spilled by our own kids. Assertion
- That's why I think it's critical that if you're going to be commander-in-chief, you make tough decisions. Opinion
- But you'd better get the best advice that you possibly can get. Assertion
- And that advice comes from the people who have earned the right to say to the president, Mr. President, this is what it's going to take to do the job right. Assertion
- There's an old saying in the South that I'm sure people in
- "It takes more money to do it over than it does to do it right." Adage
- We're now seeing that in the
- We're doing a lot of things over. Assertion
- Maybe we should have just done it right. Assertion
- Well, I appreciate the question about
- And you have to look at this Middle East issue beyond just the
- You have to look at all the complexities of
- With respect to Iran, I think that there is no choice at this point other than to join up with people across the world in order to put on serious mandatory sanctions against Iran and to do everything that is going to be necessary to try to bring them to the notion that it is better for them to give up this sort of plan rather than to proceed the way we are. Opinion
- However, I think that we have to have an honest discussion with the American people about this. Opinion
- We have to ask ourselves this question: Assertion
- Are we prepared to have
- What will be the consequences of that when
- What if they go to
- What about
- And I think the American people have to at some point come to a real serious conclusion about the tough decision that has to be made when we may have to in fact strike.Opinion
Breakdown
Bulldog John McCain drops the A-Bomb with 16 Assertions, five more than the runners-up Romney and Huckabee, and ends up tied with Romney and Sam Brownback for the Speculation high score, with 3 each. His response was 73% Assertion; 14% Speculation; 9% Opinion; and 4% Personal
Tommy Thompson is tied with Duncan Hunter for fewest statements (9). His response was 56% Assertion; 22% Common knowledge; and 22% Speculation
Mitt Romney has the least diverse response, answering only in Assertions and Speculations; and percentage-wise he bests even McCain’s in Assertions, which account for 79% of his response; 21% Speculation. Both Romney and Jim Gilmore also hold the dubious honor of making no attempt to support any of their statements.
Sam Brownback ties with Giuliani as being the most diverse speaker, omitting only Adages, Exclamations, and Rhetorical Devices from his response, and is tied with former
Rudy Giuliani, the God-fearing former mayor of
Tom Tan”Colorado”: 47% Assertion; 20% Rhetorical device; 13% Personal; 13% Opinion; 7% Common knowledge.
Ron Paul is the record holder for citing evidence with 5 supporting statements, 2 of which being the only two to fulfill my criteria: Both And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." and He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," could be cited (and were done so correctly); indicated something more than a superficial understanding of the issue; relevant; and true. 67% Assertion; 20% Personal; 13% Nontrivial and true
California Rep. Duncan Hunter proves the most Personable of the candidates with a record 4 references to himself. 44% Assertion; 44% Personal; 12% Opinion
The wise old sage Mike Huckabee leads the crowd in Adages with 1, which accounts for 8% of his response. 8% Opinion…and he leaves not just McCain, but also front-runner Mitt Romney in the dust with an astonishing 84% Assertion!ed response
And Jim Gilmore has the very notable distinction of being the ONE candidate whose response isn’t overridden with Assertions, which account for a meager 30%; with the record number of Rhetorical devices, 4, making up 40%; his speech rounds out with 30% Opinion.
glass half empty or half full
From Wikipedia.org:
Is the glass half empty or half full? is a common expression, used rhetorically to indicate that a particular situation could be a cause for pessimism (half empty) or optimism (half full); or as a general litmus test to simply determine if an individual is an optimist or a pessimist OR IF TODD'S MOM IS HOT. The purpose of the question is to demonstrate that the situation may be seen in different ways depending on one's point of view and that there may be opportunity in the situation as well as trouble.
In engineering lore, the corollary to this rhetoric question is that, for an Engineer, the glass is neither half empty nor half full, it is just exactly twice as big as necessary.
Well, here's the editor's answer: If it's being poured: half full; drained: half empty. We don't understand why this is so difficult to figure out.
"But suppose you don't know whether it was being poured or drained--suppose you just came upon this half empty/full glass, how would you refer to it?"
We'd refer to it as a glass of water. Further pressed, we'd check for signs of pourage/drainage. If we found none, we'd say we'd need more information. We have done this before, and it tends to greatly agitate the questioner.
Now we acknowledge that in spirit it's a rhetorical question, but literally it's a question about the glass, not the respondent, so why be angry? Why not rephrase the question as "Taking this glass of water as a metaphor for your disposition, would you say you're a pessimist or an optimist?"
“But the reality is that [Barack Obama] runs on a populist program that says very little of substance, except that he represents hope and change.”
We don’t think even that’s substantial. “Hope” and “Change,” along with “Stability,” “Initiative,” “Experience,” “Progressiveness,” and all the other abstract virtues politicians profess to have are pitifully vague. Obama’s website saccharinely claims to be powered by “Hope and supporters like you”—we’re guessing it’s probably more the latter, but “Hope” receives noticeably more emphasis; John McCain links to a tale of his “Courageous Service” where surfers can “watch the incredible story of a true American hero who is singularly prepared to lead”—evidently when true American heroes are elected president they don’t need vice presidents, Congress, the American people…; Hillary Clinton’s website was currently unavailable.
Hillary [referring to Obama]: You gave a great speech in 2002 opposing the war in Iraq…it was after having given that speech, by the next year the speech was off your Web site. By the next year, you were telling reporters that you agreed with President Bush in his conduct of the war. And by the next year, when you were in the Senate, you were voting to fund the war time after time after time.
McCain: By the way, Senator Obama, it's a “flak” jacket.
The differences are quite…epic. If the candidates truly wish us take them at their words, do they truly expect us to believe that a nine-minute video of their self-described heroism qualifies them for office, or that a misplaced “c” disqualifies their opponent? How silly can we get?
Obama: I’m sorry, Senator, but I’m afraid you can’t say that; my campaign’s trademarked that phrase.
Obama: Actually “Vote for Hillary Clinton: Hope for
McCain: And my campaign’s trademarked all the attacks with your name: “Hillary Clinton: Bad for
Obama: Oh [checks list], you can’t say that, either.
McCain: You know, it’d probably be best if you just didn’t talk.
Obama: And is that what you want,
McCain: Like education, something my esteemed opponent has time and again proven lacking of. This is a man who, since he could first write, has consistently misspelled his own first name B-A-R-A-C-K. By the way, Senator Obama, it’s B-A-R-A-K.
Obama: It’s not my first name that’s important; it’s my middle name: H-O-P-E.
McCain: Well, you can’t spell the one thing a president needs without my first name, John—for J-O-H-O-N-E-S-T-Y.
Obama: Well, I bet you can’t spell this [throws a punch; chaos ensues].
HT to one of our favorite blogs...but you probably could have figured that out for yourselves.
Seducin' Along with Shakespeare
Shakespeare can be exasperating, whether you're scrambling to make sense of Mercutio's Queen Mab speech two hours before your high school final on Romeo and Juliet, sitting through your artsy girlfriend's ambiguously gay friend's op-art-techno-goth production of Timon of Athens, or just trying to discern why so many people are named "Pompey." But he can also teach us a lot. A wise teacher (or possibly a boozed-up derelict) once gave us this advice (possibly before voiding himself on our footwear): Choose a scene, passage, or dialogue, get an idea of the context, and read, reread, and rereread. Disregard the rest of the act or even play and focus on that one excerpt--take notes--and you may be disheartened to realize how much is going on. We, for example, applied it to this passage from Julius Caesar and were impressed with the profusion of subtext--you can practically read Cassius's thoughts.
| Open with a neutral question, but phrase it as an invitation to subtly indicate interest | CASSIUS |
| Moderately stern response; counter with playfully noncommittal | BRUTUS |
| Pause between ”you” and “do” – you want to sound encouraging, not eager | CASSIUS |
| He’s talking more – a good sign – possible slight toward | BRUTUS |
| Make up a sympathetic, yet open-ended observation to let him think you care – flatter -- exaggerate the extent of your relationship; you’ll appear too nice a guy for him to call bullshit. | CASSIUS |
| You got him talking more – blah, blah, blah, conflicting passions – “Good friend; be you one” means you’re in. “Poor Brutus with himself at war”: schmaltzy self-pity – offer a consoling hand, but don’t appear too concerned or they’ll gas about their problems all night. | BRUTUS |
| Reaffirm their loving nature while you allude to their situation, then gently sway the conversation toward yourself before they get too wrapped up in their woes. Mention you’ve been having some similarly deep and intriguing thoughts to get their interest, then change the subject again to keep it. Ask a lead-in to start casting doubt. | CASSIUS |
| Segue from the physical impossibility of self-reflection to imply that he can’t see what’s inside of him…but you can. | BRUTUS |
| Flatter him again by telling him he’s worthy and that the people call out for him. The mention of | CASSIUS |
| He’s wary, but he’s still talking. The fact that he responds with a direct question instead of flat-out ending the conversation indicates interest. Reaffirm your character and point out his admitted weaknesses | BRUTUS |
| Reaffirm his inability to see inside himself, reaffirm yourself as his "mirror" as well as your good character and honesty before slightly disparaging yourself so he'll start to defend your character. | CASSIUS |
