Feline Delinquency

As is known by all birdwatchers, feline delinquency is a serious problem, threatening to end the hobby of bird-loving enthusiasts. Attempting to control the nature of cats, however, is a great folly, as recognized by Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Using satiric language in order to express his disapproval for the so-called “Cat Bill” passed by the Illinois State Legislature in 1949, Governor Stevenson appropriately vetoes the bill in a humorous and witty manner.

The tone of Stevenson’s address to the Illinois State Legislature is one that is both professional as well as sarcastic. Immediately he begins by addressing the Illinois State Senate as “honorable;” furthermore, he ends his letter signing his name following “respectfully” (par. 1, 8). By beginning and ending with a respectful tone, Stevenson is able to rise above the frivolity of his legislature by acting in a professional manner. Stevenson is also sensible and pragmatic as he addresses concerns from the “Cat Bill.” For example, he addresses the nature of both cats and their owners, stating, “To escort a cat abroad on a leash is against the nature of the cat, and to permit it to venture forth for exercise unattended into a night of new dangers is against the nature of the owner” (par. 5). By considering the negative effects of this bill upon the citizens of his state, as well as the illogical and unreasonable requirements stemming from this legislation, Stevenson, although sardonically deriding the irrationality of limiting the natural freedoms of cats, is able to effectively address his reasons for vetoing the “Cat Bill.”

Stevenson’s word choice, or diction, is also especially appropriate as he negates the legislative action taken by the Illinois State Senate. Using words with negative connotations, such as “impose,” “imprison,” and “capture,” it is evident Stevenson is keeping the concerns of his audience in mind by appealing to the needs of both the citizens of Illinois as well as their representatives (par. 3). Such words indicate not only the unrealistic nature of the bill, but also aid in persuading the legislature that this bill, although not always discussed in a “serious vein,” would impact the lives of citizens in a negative manner (par. 4). Stevenson also lists some of the useful qualities of cats, describing them as “perform[ing] a useful service” especially in “combating rodents” (par. 5). Through diction which creates a positive image for cats, Stevenson is able to further convince his legislature that cats, although at times carnivorous, are not necessarily an evil to society.

Along with Stevenson’s appropriate choice of words, the figurative language used in his address, especially that of imagery, strengthens his argument against the “Cat Bill.” By describing the bill as an excuse for “small game hunt by zealous citizens,” Stevenson portrays the proponents of the “Cat Bill” as camouflage wearing citizens creating “discord, recrimination, and enmity” (par. 6). Stevenson also invokes the image of a cat on a leash, a sight that is unnatural for both cats and their human counterparts. Finally, Stevenson uses a simile to describe the classic food-chain problem of cat versus bird, saying it is “as old as time” (par. 6). By comparing the cat versus bird dilemma to time’s infinite age, Stevenson reveals the perpetual nature of fighting against animals’ basic survival instincts, raising such issues as “dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm” (par. 6).

By using rhetorical tools and techniques in support of his opinion, Stevenson provides convincing and logical reasoning in order to veto the infamous “Cat Bill.” Although satiric in nature, Stevenson’s address sensibly ensured the freedoms of cats in Illinois through his presentation of an effective and persuasive argument. Though a seemingly trivial issue, Governor Stevenson, in vetoing the “Cat Bill” prevented other serious social issues from plaguing the state of Illinois: feline delinquents crowding the state’s prison system.

Stevenson, Adlai. Veto Messages of Adlai E. Stevenson, Governor of Illinois, on Senate and House Bills Passed by the 66th General Assembly of Illinois. 23 Apr. 1949. Address.

The Title of Liberty

What classifies a true hero? Perhaps one may say that a hero is somebody who uses super powers to prevail against evil, but a true hero is one who portrays courage as they stand for truth and righteousness. In our history, many men and women act in courage, but one particular man changed the lives of many as he stood up for what he believed in during a time of evil. This man was Captain Moroni. While wickedness prevailed, Moroni took a stand and delivered his "Title of Liberty" speech at the right time, with the right people, at the right place.

In 73 B.C. a wicked man named Amalickiah desired to be king of the Nephites. The people were “led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, [and] if they would support him and establish him to be their king…he would make them rulers over the people” (Alma 46:5). Therefore, the people began to be desirous of his cunning and wicked ways, and the land of Zarahemla became a wicked land. When Captain Moroni heard of the wickedness of the people and of Amalickiah, he knew he must act. He tore a piece of his coat and wrote, “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children” (Alma 46:12), on it. With this message fastened to a pole, he went unto the people and waved the banner as he proclaimed, “Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant and they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them” (Alma 46:20).

Through his proclaim, Moroni affectively touched the lives of the right people, by being at the right place, at the right time. Thus, a moment of kairos was established. Amalickiah wished for the people of Zarahemla to follow his reign and to become a selfish and wicked people. He lured them into his attractive ideas of becoming rulers of the people and many began following him. His selfish ideals only benefited him, yet the Nephites believed his lies. If Moroni had not acted at the time he had, the Nephites would have succumb to Amalickiah. They would be a wicked people, and the righteous would dissipate. Therefore, Moroni gave his “Title of Liberty” speech at the opportune moment.

Moroni was “chief commander of the armies of the Nephites” (Alma 46:11) during the days Helaman preached to the people. Helaman was in the process of establishing churches across the land when the people began to lose sight of the Lord and become wicked. This occurrence was prevalent in the land of Zarahemla, where Moroni was. He saw the wickedness prevailing and gave his speech to a land where “brethren were gathered together against their brethren” (Alma 46:1). He knew he must touch the lives of the people of Zarahemla and influence their hearts to turn to the Lord once again; otherwise any righteousness would be destroyed. Thus, Moroni spoke at the right place at the right time.

Although wickedness was beginning to prosper, few righteous people remained. If Moroni had not addressed this particular group of people at the time he did and the place he did, these righteous people may have fallen and joined the wicked. After Moroni had proclaimed to the people, “the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God” (Alma 46:21). They were ready to act and support Moroni in his righteous endeavors. They did not agree with Amalickiah and were waiting for something to happen for their neighbors, friends, and family to be reminded of the Lord. It was the opportune moment and because he spoke at the right place, at the right time to the right people, “they began to have peace again in the land” (Alma 46:37).

The definition of kairo is to act at the right place, to the right people, at the right time. Moroni acted fearlessly in a time when wickedness prevailed. He stood and acted on the Lord’s side, proclaiming to the people of Zarahemla to stand with him in righteousness and serve the Lord. The timing of his proclamation to the Nephites in the land of Zarahemla was perfect. So perfect, that it changed the wicked effects of Amalickiah and peace prospered once again in the land. Through his “Title of Liberty” proclamation, Moroni acted as a true hero and a perfect example of kairo was established.

Influence of Time

Words can have such great power and influence in the lives of humans. There have been many speeches given by authoritative figures in American history that could have been directly related to kairos. Kairos means the right time, at the right place, with the right people. I read Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech. Back in the early 1950's and 1960's, segregation was nothing but common amongst American citizens. People were accustomed to those of other ethnicities being below them and not allowing them to have the same rights as those 'true Americans'. Martin Luther King became aware of these issues at a very early age. He grew up in a very religious family and became a pastor at just the age of 25. Martin Luther gathered facts and began to find people that supported him, both of the African American race, and that of others as well.


Segregation and unequal treatment had been going on for years before Martin Luther King Jr. became involved in the issues. African Americans had been treated unfairly by other citizens as well as government authorities (i.e. police officers). There had been many cases of children being harassed for drinking out of a 'whites only' drinking fountain. Rosa Parks had gotten arrested for not moving from her seat for a white citizen. People were aware of the issue, whether they wanted to be or not. When Martin delivered his speech on August 28, 1963, people were ready to hear what he said. People were ready to have a leader step up and take charge to change the views of those who weren't being fair. Martin Luther King delivered his speech with impeccable timing, and those who were there recieved it with all of the power that he delievered it with. He said, "One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition." (par.3) He addressed the true fact that African American's progress towards equality had hardly moved over hundreds of years. Everyone knew that it was time to make a change, and by giving it when he did, he woke up many Americans as to the horrific treatment that was occuring in this country.

Martin Luther King Jr. chose a prime place to deliver his memorable speech. Delivering it in Washington D.C. showed numerous things about him, and also affected his speech. By giving it in such a monumental place in the country, many people were exposed to what he was saying. It showed that he had courage and that he was willing to fully back up the issue at hand. He chose a place that was a neutral zone. It would have been much less effective if he were to have given it in Alabama, because of the heavier concentration of African Americans. Washington D.C. at that time had an ample amount of many different races, thus making it much more effective. By having his speech in D.C, he made many people think that he had faith in the issue. Having it in such an important location showed that he had confidence in the issue of segregation being solved. Many people became inspired to help push for the passing of the Equal Rights Amendment because of his speech.


Going along with that, hundreds of thousands of Americans attended the speech. Not only were the vast majority of them supporters, but there were many protestors there as well. The protestors were there to try to boycott the speech, but regardless, they were there to hear what he had to say. Supporters came from all across the country to hear this monumental speech, and it was broadcasted on many television and radio stations. Many people, even not in attendance, were affected by the power with which he delivered the speech. Many people became actively involved in the issues after his speech because of how he aroused emotions in American citizens. Martin Luther related to the people by talking about his dreams and his wishes to make America the best country it can be. He persuades the citizens because they are able to feel the sincerity of his words.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech was directly related to kairos. The timing of his speech during these difficult times helped to make it more effective. He delivered it to many different races of Americans, making it a monumental speech. He got many people aware of, and involved in the issues at hand. Delivering it Washington D.C. gave the speech the edge that it needed. It showed that he was a true leader and that he genuinely cared about treatment of all citizens. His courageousness proved him to be one of the most influential leaders that would ever live. Due to his speech and the dedication to the issue at hand, segregation became illegal and African Americans were given fair treatment.


American Rhetoric Top 100 American Speeches. 2001-2009. American Rhetoric. 18 September
2009 <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm>.

RA Post #1 "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

FDR's Inaugural Speech

March 4, 1933

The Great Depression was triggered in the United States by the stock market crash of October 29, 1929, also known as Black Tuesday. After the crash, profits plunged, prices dropped, and income fell. In the United States, unemployment rose to 25 percent. The nation was hungry for physical and emotional sustenance and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's election came at just the right time. Roosevelt delivered his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933 to a "stricken nation" in need of reassurance and heavy dose of morale booster (par. 22). Kairos is definitely an important part of this speech as he talks to the right people (the Americans in the 1930's) at the right place (inaugural speech) at the right time (during the Depression). In his speech, Roosevelt reaches out to the people of the United States at the perfect time in order to call the nation to action.

Roosevelt is using the opportunity of his inauguration well to talk to the right people. The Americans of the 1930's needed to have their spirits lifted and needed someone to lead them to change. His rhetoric is perfect for his audience. He talks about how "happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort" (par. 8). The 25 percent of Americans without jobs and everyone else who was getting less pay would have liked to hear that happiness doesn't come from having money. He goes on to invoke friendly feelings of teamwork when he speaks of "the American spirit of the pioneer" and the "policy of the good neighbor" (par. 16, 17). Roosevelt's speech was for all Americans who were listening all together. The people of the United States needed to work together in order to pull out of the Depression.

Roosevelt not only talks to the right people but he does it in the right place. Every person in the United States was aware of the changes in presidential office. In the 1932 election, Roosevelt won by a landslide with Hoover carrying only six states and less than 40 percent of the popular vote. People were obviously interested to hear what he had to say and therefore either listen to or read his speech. If one wants the people to hear something, a speech, specifically an inaugural speech, is an excellent way. He's able to give specific ideas for restoration and change. Roosevelt discusses "the putting of first things first", "lines of attack", and then "interdepence on each other" while showing the steps of how he plans on putting the country back together (par. 15, 14,18). What better place than the inauguration to address the people on how the "nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper" (par. 1)?

The final piece to making the kairos situation perfect is using rheotric at the right time. Roosevelt begins his speech by sympathizing with the people and discussing their "common difficulties" (par. 3). He doesn't try to sugar coat the situation but instead says that "only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment" (par. 4). At the time of his inauguration, the country was in a sad state. Many were unemployed, people were going hungry, and despair was around every corner. Roosevelt came into office at a tough time, in the midst of an incredibly large financial crisis. The timing was just right for him to come in and lift the country.

After sympathizing and including himself as an American, and after giving encouragement, Roosevelt builds up to a call to action. He says "this Nation is asking for action, and action now" (par. 10). This need for action is supported by the fact that the tasks ahead "can never be helped by merely talking about it" and Roosevelt says "we must act, we must act quickly" (par.12). The kairos of the situation, the right people at the right place at the right time, works so well for him that he is able to instill a fresh vision in the American people. The people were able to press forward to strengthen each other and the country, fortified by the fact that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" (par. 2).

Stale Beer

For some people, old news is good news. Issues of the past never seem to die. Though the general public has moved on to formulate opinions on new, more relevant community concerns, there are some who attempt to drum up support for subjects that have long since been forgotten by the majority of citizens. Such is the case with JoAnn Hamilton and the Bountiful City liquor license laws.

Bountiful, a suburb of Salt Lake City, Utah, is a community that traces its roots to the Mormon pioneers, an influence still seen in many of the city’s family-centered ordinances. One such regulation included a liquor law forbidding the distribution of alcohol within 600 feet of a public building. Considered a non-issue by most citizens, this liquor law remained uncontested until El Matador, a popular, local restaurant, received a building permit to construct a new location 412 feet away from the local library. It was not until three weeks before the restaurant’s completion that the owner, Artoosh Hasration, was told serving alcohol in his restaurant violated city law. Appealing to Mayor Joe Johnson and the Bountiful City Council, Hasration sparked a debate concerning dated liquor laws and family values. Many citizens, including Hamilton, a national advocate for children and families, petitioned the city to uphold traditional morals.

Faced with enraged citizens or allowing business to come to the city, Mayor Johnson and City Council members finally voted on 11 December 2007, changing the city ordinance and allowing El Matador to obtain a liquor license. Although public discussion occurred in numerous city council meetings, through the local newspaper, “The Davis County Clipper,” and in other, appropriate civic settings, the decision of the city effectively ended debate. As seen in her 16 July 2009 letter to the editor, some citizens, including Hamilton, have not laid the issue to rest.

Now, almost two years later, Hamilton is still concerned about the city’s decision, upset at the “nastiness, manipulative behavior” of the mayor and city council (par. 15). Granted, her trepidation concerning the proceedings of the mayor and the city council may be valid; however, using her own form of mudslinging techniques, Hamilton’s complaints against Mayor Johnson using two-year old dirt is not an effective form of persuasion. The El Matador liquor license debate has long since passed the critical moment for decision-making. In fact, this period of kairos, the opportune moment for persuasion and argumentation, occurred in December 2007, before the Bountiful City Council granted El Matador a beer license. Hamilton, although justly concerned for the community’s well-being, is seemingly too late in her debate: although she can “see the issue going nationwide,” the rest of the community has since moved on (par. 14). The issue of beer near the library has since disintegrated.

Ironically, through criticizing Mayor Johnson for his role in the El Matador liquor issue, Hamilton has opened her own can of worms, and, as a result, harming the campaign of her family-friendly candidate, Jeff Novak. Subsequent editorials responding to her claims against the incumbent have drummed up extensive support for Mayor Johnson, who, in the recent mayoral primaries, won 67 percent of the vote, with Jeff Novak, Hamilton’s candidate, receiving only 24 percent of the vote. In attempting to discredit Bountiful’s current mayor, Hamilton appears to have given him November’s election.

Hamilton’s editorial reveals the importance of kairos, the presentation of an argument in the correct manner at the most opportune time. Though her concern for the community is commendable, Hamilton illustrates that issues of the past are best left alone, especially when the prime moment for argumentation has long since ended. Old news, therefore, is never good news, when attempting to persuade a forward-looking audience.

Hamilton, JoAnn. Letter. Davis County Clipper 16 July 2009. Web. 17 Sep. 2009.