oh, my goodness!

Justin Blumberg
English 505
December 08, 2008

Theory and Analysis of Two Opposing Arguments About the Endangered Species Act

Background Information
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has elicited strong responses from both its supporters and its detractors. The ESA is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). It was born out of earlier attempts by the U.S. government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation, which grew out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world and prompted the creation of this unique and influential law.

Theory and Analysis
Rhetorical situations are invaluable and inevitable realities. It is these fleeting confluences of events which create the impetus, the necessity for rhetorical response. Lloyd Bitzer argued that “human relations operate[d] in the context of rhetorical situations governed by exigencies, that is, social, political, economic, and ethical urgencies that invite[d] discursive responses” (Lucaites 213-214). Whenever someone accepts the invitation for verbal or written response to the exigency then a natural union is made between an ambiguous something we call rhetorical situation and our acknowledgement of that something through that which we call rhetoric.

These moments of inspiration are ever present in the universe and within our own personal sphere of interactions. Just as rhetorical situations exist in the air so too does rhetoric. It is through rhetoric that we humans are able to make sense of, and interact with, each other and our environment. Rhetoric is broadly defined as “the art or the discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one person or a group of persons” (Corbett 1). Ultimately, though, rhetoric is a means for persuasion by a speaker or writer. When we consider these contexts, it helps us understand the influence of, and the purpose of, the rhetoric being utilized in these two opposing arguments.
It is my objective, then, to shed some light on the role of rhetoric in the contentious arguments in recent debates about the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When the ESA was up for renewal in 2005 the House passed a controversial bill, one which spread concern throughout the scientific, wildlife preservation and environmental communities. They feared that the Senate’s bill, which was presented the following year, would lead to a much weakened version of the ESA. For my purposes, I have chosen two documents that present two different opinions about the success of the ESA at conserving endangered or threatened species. It is my contention that it is through rhetorical
situations that rhetoric is given the fuel for action/life and that each rhetorical situation dictates a course for a particular rhetorical response.
In this instance, we may identify the rhetorical situation for these two documents to be, on the one hand, all of the recent activity in the U.S. Congress pertaining to the renewal and revision to the Endangered Species Act, yet, more specifically, the concern that the Senate would pass the Crapo Bill or some other like bill that would be interpreted as unwise and or ineffectual.

Long have arguments been made, throughout the history of the U.S., supporting the preservation of wildlife which have regularly butted up against the interests of other individuals, governments, and industries that revere property rights (as supported by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), industrial progress and business profits. These arguments have been brought to public attention more recently through the Bush administration’s attempts at weakening the ESA and other environmental laws and Congress’ role in facilitating that.

The House of Representatives passed what has come to be known as the Pombo Bill named after its author Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) on September 29, 2005. Critics of the bill are many and include biologists, wildlife and environmental groups, and members of Congress including members of Pombo’s own Republican Party such as Rep. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) who has collaborated with other fellow congressmen to draft more favorable legislation. Opposition voices to the bill speak of the revisions as being detrimental to the environment and wildlife. Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has said that the revisions “systematically strip all of the recovery tools from the Act” (Motavalli). This House bill “calls for the elimination of habitat protection for endangered species, weakens oversight of federal agency actions and undermines the use of sound science in decision-making about imperiled wildlife. It would also require taxpayers to pay developers not to kill endangered species” (http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/spring_2006/defenders_in_action_drive_to_weaken_species_act_moves_to_senate.php).

But there are supporters of the bill within the House and Senate, and among hunters, farmers and property rights activists. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) spoke about his bill in a written statement saying that “Upholding this right (property rights as described in the Fifth Amendment) and partnering with the landowner is the only way we are going to improve the Endangered Species Act’s failing results for recovery…This legislation does just that” (redorbit.com/news/science/ 256999/pombos_bill_clears_house_hurd le/ & Denis Cuff, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.). He has commented further, on the need for reform when he said “his bill was needed because only 10 of the roughly 1,300 species protected under the act have recovered. That is less than a 1 percent success rate” (http://redorbit.com/news/science/451661/pomboized_endangered_species_bills_worry_lawmakers/index.html).
Each document has its genesis in the form of a direct response to congressional bills, the Pombo Bill passed in the House, and the Crapo Bill, which is up for a vote in the Senate. The exigencies are one and the same here with the actions of the Senate being top-most on the minds of the authors. Will the Senate pass a bill that would complement the one passed earlier in the House? Perhaps the Senate would pass a bill that would be at odds with the House’s bill? Just the same, the Senate could decide not to take any formal action and the issue, for the moment, anyway, could die. With any one of these scenarios being equally plausible why have the authors of these documents chosen to write? Why have they made their particular rhetorical choices? One argument is made in support of the ESA while the other argues that the ESA is a failure. Which, of any, argument is more successful, and why? In order to answer these questions let us evaluate these two documents.

First is a letter written and or signed by a plethora of biologists addressed to the members of the U.S. Senate urging them to take action in support of the preservation, and the strengthening, of the Endangered Species Act. The second document is an online article written in response to the Crapo Bill also known as CRESA (Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act), which was up for a vote in the senate. The author, Peyton Knight, uses this opportunity to both comment on the ineffectual Crapo Bill, authored by Rep. Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Rep. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) and the equally failed Endangered Species Act.

The biologists’ letter is written for the purposes of deliberative discourse. In the classical sense it would also be known as political, hortative, or advisory where one debated political affairs, (Corbett 23) but generally the discourse used to persuade someone to do as we would like. Throughout the document are examples of the writer(s) establishing an ethos (an appeal to character) for themselves to serve as a foundation for counseling their audience on the Endangered Species Act. The document is written specifically for the U.S. Senate, an audience that may already have a sense of science and its importance in our modern society. The writer(s) have kept this in mind when drafting this letter as evidenced in the lack of elitist language (scientific language that might only be understood by those persons who reside in that particular discourse community). An example of this would be the quote below from an article about morningglories titled Morphological Comparison of Morningglory (Ipomoea and Jacquemontia spp.)
Populations from the Southeastern United States.

Morningglories are troublesome weeds in row crops and other agricultural areas throughout the United States. Plants of pitted morningglory, sharppod morningglory, and a fertile ‘‘hybrid’’ between pitted and sharppod morningglory (hybrid morningglory), were compared with cypressvine, ivyleaf, palmleaf, purple moonflower, red, and smallflower morningglories in greenhouse studies at Stoneville, MS. Plants from each of 76 accessions were studied for number of nodes to first internode elongation; stem color and pubescence; leaf area and dry weight of first four full expanded leaves; leaf blade pubescence on abaxial and adaxial surfaces and margins; leaf color, shape, and lobing; petiole length, color, and pubescence; sepal length, color, and pubescence; and corolla color, diameter, and length. Among these morningglories, the most diverse traits were pubescence and flower characteristics (Bryson 692).

You can understand that the language used in the above quote is specialized with lots of words, terms and data that may or may not make immediate sense to the Everyman. That could prove detrimental for the biologists who are trying to articulate their thoughts and opinions to a presumed Everyman in the U.S. Senate. So instead, the writer(s) had written their letter succinctly (only three pages long), in very plain language, one which non-experts could make sense of. For example,

objective scientific information and methods should be used in listing species, subspecies, and distinct population segments as endangered or threatened under the Act. While non-scientific factors may appropriately be considered at points later in the process of protecting species, their use in listing decisions is inconsistent with biologically defensible principles. Due to the fragile state of many of those species that require the Act’s protections, the listing process needs to proceed as promptly as possible; otherwise, species will go extinct while waiting to be listed (A Letter…Endangered Species Act 4).

Science has a significant role in our society. Often science and scientists are perceived as the vehicle for progress and for the truth. The language used within the scientific community with its unique traits, thought of, by some, as being haughty and impenetrable may uphold this perception of power and expertise. Part of the responsibility of any purveyor of an argument is to provide adequate support for the claim. Scientists rely upon data to establish the validity of their work and to support the knowledge they pursue and the claims they make. The use of data and historical perspective (the biologists’ reminding the senators of the motivations behind President Nixon signing the ESA into law) serves to both validate the opinions they provide and also to appeal to reason (logos), the hope being that the senators would believe scientists’ claims on scientific issues, especially when backed up with data to corroborate.

From the beginning, the writer(s) and signatories of the biologists’ letter had made it obvious that they were going to get their message out through the use of ethos. The best rhetorical weapon they could have when addressing a scientific issue to politicians would be to portray themselves as experts, and through creating this ethos, a voice of authority, it becomes an undeniably powerful form of persuasion. They include at the outset five different quotes from scientists commenting on why the ESA is important, about why it should be protected Concluding the letter with eight more individual quote from scientists. Comments such as: Scientists know we must protectspecies because they are workingparts of our life-support system.Paul Ehrlich, Entomologist, Population BiologistBing Professor of Population Studies and president,Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University,California; member, National Academy of Sciences;MacArthur Fellow; and Crafoord Prize winner in Bioscience,

andTo weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered Species Act is to doom more species to extinction.Walter V. Reid, EcologistConsulting professor, Institute for the Environment,Stanford University, California; former director, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; and past boardmember, Society for Conservation Biologyare strong rhetoric meant to set the tone for the entire letter and serve as expert advice for senators who might not understand the significance of wildlife conservation. This rhetorical device is continued farther down the letter into what I might consider a banner, basically a truncated restatement of the title, which states, in large bold print, that this is “A Letter from 5,738 Biologists to the United States Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act.” Again, the writer(s) of this letter are not being subtle in their attempts to draw attention to the sheer volume of scientific experts who are supporting the ESA. And even at the conclusion of the letter it is signed

Sincerely,
5,738 Scientific Experts Concerned About Endangered Species and Their Habitats,

repeating the number of science experts who are responsible for this entreaty, which provides emphasis to the ethos of the writer(s) and signatories who are addressing the U.S. Senate.

The added strength of any argument is to provide support for a claim. Writers and speakers alike need to provide examples, quotations, or citations in order to successfully defend their statements to an audience expecting to be persuaded or informed by the truth. For the rhetorician they would apply inventio (all available means of persuasion) and topics (means for researching arguments). For the scientists, they are especially relying on data to be the warrant for their claims. An example from their letter would be:

According to an article in the September 30, 2005, edition of Science, less than one percent of listed species have gone extinct since 1973, while 10 percent of candidate species still waiting to be listed have suffered that fate. In addition to the hundreds of species that the Act has protected from extinction, listing has contributed to population increases or the stabilization of populations for at least 35 percent of listed species, and perhaps significantly more, as well as the recovery of such signature species as the peregrine falcon (A Letter…Endangered Species Act 4).

This appeal to reason (logos) to produce empirical evidence is, ultimately, what science is all about and it is an effectual rhetorical device, especially when paired with an ethical appeal. For example:

We are writing as biologists with expertise in a variety of scientific disciplines that concern biological diversity and the loss of species… Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water, and myriad other ecosystem products and services on which we depend every day. If we look only at well-studied species groups, nearly one-third of native species in the United States are at risk of disappearing. Extinction is truly irreversible — once gone, individual species and all of the services that they provide us cannot be brought back (A Letter…Endangered Species Act 4).

The above quote begins by re-establishing a voice of authority (ethos) (“we are writing…with expertise”) then proceeds to offer expert knowledge backed with data (ethos and logos) (“Biological diversity provides food…[and] nearly one-third of native species…are at risk of disappearing”).

The second document, written by Peyton Knight, follows much in the same manner as the biologists’ letter. As a commentator and analyst of public policy, Knight already possesses a certain expertise that rivals that of the scientists though is quite different. His use of ethos is as an expert in interpreting the ideas and information found in documents of public policy, documents such as the Crapo Bill and the Endangered Species Act. Knight is traversing the same territory the scientists must traverse that of interpreting statistical and scientific data to bolster arguments (ethos and logos). However, Knight comes to a much different conclusion than do the scientists. For example, he speaks of the failure of the ESA, and, in so doing, he provides a wealth of examples and data to support his claims.

In the more than 32 years the Endangered Species Act has been on the books, just 34 of the nearly 1,300 U.S. species given special protection have made their way off the "endangered" or "threatened" lists. Of this number, nine species are now extinct, 14 appear to have been improperly listed in the first place, and just nine (0.6 percent of all the species listed) have recovered sufficiently to be de-listed. Two species (a plant with white to pale-blue flowers called the Hoover's woolly-star and a yellow perennial, Eggert's sunflower) appear to have made their way off the threatened list, in part through "recovery" and in part because they were not as threatened as originally believed (Knight).

The above quote is chock full of statistics; several within each sentence; bumping into each other and spilling into another sentence. This ample use of data is Knight’s way of emphasizing his expertise as an analyst by inundating the reader with data (logos).

It would be reasonable to assume that a senator, as an Everyman, would seek out the counsel of a science expert to guide their decision-making on science issues. It is no wonder then that the biologists chose to take every opportunity to communicate their expertise as biologists and to emphasize the volume of expert supporters. Yet, the same use of data by Knight, a non-scientist, provides his opposition argument with the same, or nearly the same, power of persuasion. Data for the scientist is tantamount to the truth. But rhetoric only knows of truth, truth with a capital T through the mind/perspective of the speaker.

The relationship between truth and rhetoric can be as distant and unmanageable as Plato believed it to be. In his mind, any speaker (rhetor) or writer could adeptly utilize rhetoric to successfully argue an untruth, to convince others to believe an untruth. Sometimes, like with these two documents with their two different opinions, we can see how people may just disagree about something they see a different truth, yet are able to argue their cases effectively. Truth in this instance is subjective reality and the rhetorical situations, though, are not subjective. This instance is no better an example when we have a conflict of truths. Or perhaps a better way of looking at it is as a conflict of rhetorical impetus.

The motivations for both authors to pen their documents are different despite sharing the same rhetorical situation (concern that the senate would pass a bad bill). For the biologists, they are addressing their concern and counsel to U.S. Senators who are directly responsible for developing and passing a bill that would have strong implications for the future of the ESA. They need to ingratiate themselves to the powers that be and persuade them to make good and wise decisions. (This something Sir Thomas More aspired to do, knowing full well, though, that “it was folly to believe that princes would listen to truths that they did not wish to hear” (Brigden 3) -- thus is the nature of counsel. As More had said, “If profit were honorable, everybody would be honorable”) [www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_more.html]. The biologists are relying on the perception of scientists as being able to make sense of the world in ways that non-scientists cannot. If the U.S. Senate can, at the outset, be predisposed to trusting the advice from the scientific community then half the battle is already won. All the biologists would require thereafter would be to deliver the counsel in such a way as to make it clear to the senators what is being argued and that it is good.

Knight is responding to the introduction of the Crapo Bill in the Senate. As a commentator and analyst of public policy he is serving the needs of a particular audience that reads the web articles of his employer, National Policy Analysis. But like the biologists, the rhetorical situation Knight shares is the potential creation of poor public policy (a weakened ESA). He has a responsibility to serve the needs of his employer and his readers by doing his job effectively. An analysis must be made on his topic of discussion and it must be communicated thoroughly and articulated effectively so as to make a logical and persuasive case for his statement of opinion -- or fact, as he would have his audience believe. If he is unable to effectively explicate the documents he is writing about, if he is unable to develop a suitable design of language, then what he writes is of no consequence, even if he is “correct” in his assessment of the state of the ESA and the ineffectiveness of the Crapo Bill. Knight wisely chooses to argue against scientific opinion by using the same type information scientists use to bolster their claims (data and examples) and presents those statistics as warrants for his own claims. He is essentially fighting science and scientists on their own rhetorical terms.

It is difficult, to say the least, to determine a winner in this debate. Supposing, that is, that there is a clear competition between the authors of these two documents. Each, on their own terms, has effectively done their job, argued their case in a fitting and persuasive manner. Neither author was addressing their concerns to the other, nor were they writing for the same audience. Where they oppose each other is with personal or professional philosophy, and where these diverge in the writers’ own rhetorical motivations, just as where they equally meet is through a shared rhetorical situation. Ultimately, for these writers success can be based upon direct knowledge of their influence on their audience, and, more broadly, on how events have played out. Regardless of whether they had direct influence on their shared desired outcome (the Senate not passing an unwise or ineffectual bill that would harm endangered or threatened species), it should be considered, in their minds, a success.

As it is, the Senate did not pass the Crapo Bill into legislation. “The Senate adjourned in 2006 without passing the weakening bill H.R. 3824” (http://wwf.worldwildlife.org/site/PageServer?pagename=can_results_endangered_species) and the ESA has, for now, remained unmolested. In fact, as of
Wednesday, April 5, 2006, the Senate unanimously approved a Senate Resolution establishing May 11, 2006 as Endangered Species Day. Endangered Species Day will encourage educational activities in schools throughout the country to promote awareness of threatened and endangered species and what can be done to help. The resolution encourages organizations, businesses, landowners, and government agencies to collaborate on educational materials and events to highlight the importance of and need to protect species (uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=8588&id3=USPIRG&).
The acuity of the debate brings the rhetoric into focus, and as objectives are met more or less indirectly, the strength of arguments can be judged. These two opposing arguments were derived from similar constraints where the writers were in a position of necessary reaction and interaction. They had to acknowledge that events and personal or professional responsibilities dictated that they act in some fashion – a rhetorical situation required a rhetorical response.
In this context the rhetorical situation was a shared experience for both authors. The U.S. Congress was motivated to make changes to the Endangered Species Act, precipitated by the passage of the Pombo Bill in the House. If the Senate chose to follow with the same course of action in the name of “progress” then certain undesirable alterations to the ESA, in the minds of the authors, would become reality. Where the authors share the same rhetorical situation their motivations, were different. For the biologists’ it was imperative to influence U.S. Senators to adhere to their advice because if the ESA were negatively affected then a national heritage would be damaged, jobs lost, and the biodiversity of our country would be irreparably harmed. As biologists, they were compelled to act in the best interest of biodiversity. Peyton Knight’s motivation for arguing against the Crapo Bill is different from his response to the Endangered Species Act. His position as an analyst of public policy demands his commentary, and he deemed the Crapo Bill to be flawed. This initial response was a rhetorical response to the rhetorical situation and it led directly to his motivation for discussion on the ESA as a whole, which he argues is flawed as well.

Looking at both documents, it is evident that rhetoric responds to rhetorical situations either directly or indirectly by anticipating opposing arguments and understanding when information is best displayed and for what purpose. A direct response might be taking on an authoritative voice, emphasizing their expertise and providing the data and opinion that would be necessary to support their claims. An indirect response could involve anticipating opposing arguments and questions and concerns of the ignorant, and understanding the role of supporting information when presenting an argument. The call and response relationship between rhetorical situations and rhetoric keeps both the engine of the issue and of the letter going forward. Exigencies beget rhetorical response and rhetorical response begets additional rhetorical situations – they may disperse in different ways but it will be the one thread of discourse that the speaker/writer will focus on to meet their ends.

What comes of this are two different reactions, born out of two separate motivations responding to the same social, political, scientific impetus. The audiences are different for each author, yet the nature of the topic of conversation and the professional implications for the authors (scientists and public policy analyst) requires the same rhetorical choices for maximum effect.

Rhetoric defines who we are and all other forms of existence. Objects and events take on significance only when we acknowledge them through words and expressions. Would anyone be able to recognize the implications of the designed changes to the Endangered Species Act, as envisioned by the Pombo and Crapo Bills, if not for the rhetoric employed by the concerned biologists and Peyton Knight? It is through their words, their rhetorical choices, that created a framework for ideas and discussion to propagate, whether or not one wants to believe what one or the other writer claims or if it should inspire further arguments that may bring up other ideas and claims. I see rhetoric operating in just this fashion, and though neither of these writers may have been independent, uninfluenced or first to provide their particular rhetorical response their contributions, nonetheless, brought attention to an event, an issue, and an opinion not available without their rhetoric.

And that rhetoric was a tactic of discourse shared by each author. The rhetorical situation that provoked either author to respond in their writings was an event of delicate social, political and scientific importance. Had they merely taken a less thoughtful approach to addressing their audience, in a manner suited to their topic of concern, (the ESA) they could have stupidly misrepresented themselves, their audience’s intelligence, motivations and power. The intent was predetermined by a confluence of both rhetorical situation and personal and professional motivations. Because the audiences each writer is addressing are different but share a presumed lack of expertise in scientific data and public policy they both needed to design a rhetorical discourse that emphasized ethos and logos, an appeal of character, or expertise, and an appeal of reason or logic. Each writer felt a need to articulate their position in a way that could persuade people that would require some guidance in formulating an opinion about the effectiveness of the ESA.

Ethos has the power to ingratiate itself to an audience. It helps establish that the speaker or writer has the authority to speak and that their input is of value. By choosing a strong character to voice the concerns of the biologists, they were giving themselves a foot in the door, or to have the ear, of the senate. When they state they are 5,738 biologists no fewer than six times throughout the letter not including the 100 plus signatories tacked on after the letter and the quotes at the beginning – this is ethos, and the stats they use and the historical background are how they utilized logos. They are using facts and historical perspective to support their case and to persuade their audience to see things in the same way as they and their forbears. In exactly the same way, Peyton Knight was able to accomplish this when he was reaching out to his presumed ignorant, though, politically astute readers. He made his claims and backed them up by carefully dissecting the Endangered Species Act.

Ultimately, there is way to determine how the documents affected the outcome of Congress’ efforts regarding the Endangered Species Act. Since the same rhetorical devices were employed by both writers it is hard to determine who produced the more effective rhetoric, or why that would be the case. Within these two documents though we can identify the power and influence of rhetoric when it is utilized intelligently and with passion and purpose. This becomes the root of societies and all of their social, political, religious, and ethical activities, and of their interpersonal relations.























Works Cited



A Letter from Biologists to the United States Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act. March 2006. Retrieved 10/28/2008.

www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_more.html. Retrieved 12/01/2008.

Brigden, Susan. New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors, 1485-1603. Harmondsworth: Viking, 2000.

Bryson, Charles T. Morphological comparison of morningglory (Ipomoea and Jacquemontia spp.) populations from the southeastern United States. Weed Science, vol. 56 Issue: 5 Pages: 692-698 Published: SEP-OCT 2008.

Corbett, Edward P.J., and Robert J. Connors. Classical Rhetoric For The Modern Student. 4th ed. New York: Oxford Press, 1999.

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/spring_2006/defenders_in_action_drive_to_weaken_species_act_moves_to_senate.php. Retrieved 10/12/2008.

Kennedy, George A. Aristotle On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Knight, Peyton. The ‘Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act’ An Analysis of the Senate Proposal to Reform the Endangered Species Act.” National Policy Analysis, June 2006.

Lucaites, John Louis, and Celeste Michelle Condit, and Sally Caudill. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.

Motavalli, Jim. www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_more.html. Retrieved 10/12/2008.

http://redorbit.com/news/science/ 256999/pombos_bill_clears_house_hurd le/ & Denis Cuff, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Retrieved 10/29/2008.

http://redorbit.com/news/science/451661/pomboized_endangered_species_bills_worry_lawmakers/index.html. Retrieved 12/01/2008.

Salzman, James, and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Environmental Law and Policy. 2nd ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2007.

uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=8588&id3=USPIRG&. Retrieved 11/02/2008.

http://wwf.worldwildlife.org/site/PageServer?pagename=can_results_endangered_species. Retrieved 11/11/2008

Trailer Tractor Tooth Pull

okay

so this whole google docs things seemed like a grand ol' idea at the time, but i was stuffed silly still with free-range tofurkey. what did i know?

it seems that i am not alone in having difficulty with operating the docs thingamajig and i am now officially beyond caring. i was able to read cathy's essay when she e-mailed it to me as an attachment, and it is much different from mine in topic and execution but i thought it was well written. i could also see why she may have been having trouble writing it. i sympathize, truly.

i am now resigned to keeping my essay as is, for the most part. i still am editing, still inserting in-text citations and writing my works cited page. if i get any advice before i go to bed tonite then i will gladly accept that and do what i can to improve my essay. however, i am, essentially, keeping my essay as is, for better or for worse. 

i am glad to finally see the light at the end of the tunnel regarding this essay. i have worked very hard on researching it and writing it and am proud of a fair portion of it. it went through a myriad of changes, it still lacks a solid thesis, but i think despite my difficulties in writing it i believe that things worked out well. i am planning on e-mailing, as an attachment my essay to everyone but nate and cathy. whatever i have by the time i go to bed tonite is it. that will be my final essay, as i have to spend my sunday working on my final for tech writing.

peace

j

Wild Tofurkey

tofurkey was new for me
tofurkey was a smashing success for all at this year's Thanksgiving at the shackman residence

i will post the majority of my essay to date (all that is fit to share)
nameste


Justin Blumberg
English 505
December 08, 2008

Essay

Background Information
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has elicited strong responses from both its supporters and its detractors. The ESA is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). It was born out of earlier attempts by the U.S. government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation, which grew out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world and prompted the creation of this unique and influential law.

Other Part
Rhetorical situations are invaluable and inevitable realities. It is through these fleeting confluences of events which create the impetus, the necessity for rhetorical response. Lloyd Bitzer argued that “human relations operate[d] in the context of rhetorical situations governed by exigencies, that is, social, political, economic, and ethical urgencies that invite[d] discursive responses” ( ). Whenever someone accepts the invitation for verbal or written response to the exigency then a natural union is made between an ambiguous something we call rhetorical situation and our acknowledgement of that something through that which we call rhetoric.

These moments of inspiration are ever present in the universe and within our own personal sphere of interactions. Just as rhetorical situations exist in the air so to does rhetoric. It is through rhetoric that we humans are able to make sense of, and interact with, each other and our environment. Rhetoric is broadly defined as “the art or the discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one person or a group of persons” (Corbett 1). Ultimately, though, rhetoric is a means for persuasion by a speaker or writer. When we consider these contexts when analyzing two opposing arguments, it helps us understand the influence of, and the purpose of, the rhetoric being utilized.
It is my objective, then, to shed some light on the role of rhetoric in the contentious arguments in recent debates about the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When the ESA was up for renewal in Congress in 2005 a controversial bill was passed in the House that year, one which spread concern throughout the scientific, wildlife preservation and environmental communities. They feared that the Senate’s bill, which was presented the following year, would lead to a much weakened version of the ESA. For my purposes, I have chosen two documents that present two different opinions about the success of the ESA at conserving endangered or threatened species. It is my contention that it is through rhetorical situations that rhetoric is given the fuel for action/life and that each rhetorical situation dictates a course for a particular rhetorical response.
In this instance, we may identify the rhetorical response for these two documents to be, on the one hand, all of the recent activity in the U.S. Congress pertaining to the renewal and revision to the Endangered Species Act, yet, more specifically, the concern that the Senate would pass the Crapo Bill or some other like bill that would be interpreted as unwise and or ineffectual.

Long have arguments been made, throughout the history of the U.S., supporting the preservation of wildlife which have regularly butted up against the interests of other individuals, governments, and industries that revere property rights (as supported by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), industrial progress and business profits. These arguments have been brought to public attention more recently through the Bush Administration’s attempts at weakening the ESA and other environmental laws and Congress’ role in facilitating that.

The House of Representatives passed what has come to be known as the Pombo Bill named after its author Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) on September 29, 2005. Critics of the bill are many and include biologists, wildlife and environmental groups, and members of Congress including members of Pombo’s own Republican Party such as Rep. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Opposition voices to the bill speak of the revisions as being detrimental to the environment and wildlife. Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has said that the revisions “systematically strip all of the recovery tools from the Act” (Jim Motavalli e-Magazine.co m). This House bill “calls for the elimination of habitat protection for endangered species, weakens oversight of federal agency actions and undermines the use of sound science in decision-making about imperiled wildlife. It would also require taxpayers to pay developers not to kill endangered species” (Defenders of Wildlife web article).

But there are supporters of the bill within the House and Senate, and among hunters, farmers and property rights activists. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) spoke about his bill in a written statement saying that “Upholding this right (property rights as described in the Fifth Amendment) and partnering with the landowner is the only way we are going to improve the Endangered Species Act’s failing results for recovery…This legislation does just that” (redorbit.com/news/science/ 256999/pombos_bill_clears_house_hurd le/ & Denis Cuff, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.).
Each document has its genesis in the form of a direct response to congressional bills, the Pombo Bill passed in the House, and the Crapo Bill, which is up for a vote in the Senate. The exigencies are one and the same here with the actions of the Senate being top-most on the minds of the authors. Will the Senate pass a bill that would complement the one passed earlier in the House? Perhaps, the Senate would pass a bill that would be at odds with the House’s bill? Just the same, the Senate could decide not to take any formal action and the issue, for the moment, anyway, could die. With any one of these scenarios being equally plausible why have the authors of these documents chosen to write? Why have they made their particular rhetorical choices? One argument is made in support of the ESA while the other argues that the ESA is a failure. Which, of any, argument is more successful, and why? In order to answer these questions let us evaluate these two documents.

First is a letter written and or signed by a plethora of biologists addressed to the members of the U.S. Senate urging them to take action in support of the preservation, and the strengthening, of the Endangered Species Act.

The second document is an online article written in response to the Crapo Bill also known as CRESA (Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act), which was up for a vote in the senate. The author, Peyton Knight, uses this opportunity to both comment on the ineffectual Crapo Bill, authored by Rep. Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Rep. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) and the equally failed Endangered Species Act.

The biologists’ letter is written for the purposes of deliberative discourse. In the classical sense it would also be known as political, hortative, or advisory where one debated political affairs, but generally is the discourse used to persuade someone to do as we would like. Throughout the document are examples of the writer(s) establishing an ethos (an appeal to character) for themselves to serve as a foundation for counseling their audience on the Endangered Species Act. The document is written specifically for the U.S. Senate, an audience that may already have a sense of science and its importance in our modern society. The writers have kept this in mind when drafting this letter as evidenced in the lack of elitist language (scientific language that might only be understood by those persons who reside in that particular discourse community), an example of this would be the quote below from an article about morningglories titled Morphological Comparison of Morningglory (Ipomoea and Jacquemontia spp.)
Populations from the Southeastern United States.

“Morningglories are troublesome weeds in row crops and other agricultural areas throughout the United States. Plants of pitted morningglory, sharppod morningglory, and a fertile ‘‘hybrid’’ between pitted and sharppod morningglory (hybrid morningglory), were compared with cypressvine, ivyleaf, palmleaf, purple moonflower, red, and smallflower morningglories in greenhouse studies at Stoneville, MS. Plants from each of 76 accessions were studied for number of nodes to first internode elongation; stem color and pubescence; leaf area and dry weight of first four full expanded leaves; leaf blade pubescence on abaxial and adaxial surfaces and margins; leaf color, shape, and lobing; petiole length, color, and pubescence; sepal length, color, and pubescence; and corolla color, diameter, and length. Among these morningglories, the most diverse traits were pubescence and flower characteristics” ( ).

Instead the writers had written their letter succinctly, in very plain language, one which non-experts could make sense of. For example,

“objective scientific information and methods should be used in listing species, subspecies, and distinct population segments as endangered or threatened under the Act. While non-scientific factors may appropriately be considered at points later in the process of protecting species, their use in listing decisions is inconsistent with biologically defensible principles. Due to the fragile state of many of those species that require the Act’s protections, the listing process needs to proceed as promptly as possible; otherwise, species will go extinct while waiting to be listed” ( ).

Science has a significant role in our society, often science and scientists are perceived as the vehicle for progress and for the truth. The language used within the scientific community with its unique traits, thought of, by some, as being haughty and impenetratable may uphold this perception of power and expertise. Part of the responsibility of any purveyor of an argument is to provide adequate support for the claim. Scientists rely upon data to establish the validity of their work and to support the facts they pursue and the facts they claim. The use of data and historical perspective serves to both validate the opinions they provide and also to appeal to reason, the hope being that the senators would believe scientists claims on scientific issues, especially when backed up with data to corroborate.

From the beginning, the authors and signatories of the biologists’ letter had made it obvious that they were going to get their message out through the use of ethos. The best rhetorical weapon they could have when addressing a scientific issue to politicians would be to portray themselves as experts, and through creating this ethos, a voice of authority, it becomes an undeniably powerful form of persuasion. They include at the outset five different quotes from scientists commenting on why the ESA is important, why it should be protected. Comments such as: Scientists know we must protectspecies because they are workingparts of our life-support system.Paul Ehrlich, Entomologist, Population BiologistBing Professor of Population Studies and president,Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University,California; member, National Academy of Sciences;MacArthur Fellow; and Crafoord Prize winner in Bioscience,

andTo weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered Species Act is to doom more species to extinction.Walter V. Reid, EcologistConsulting professor, Institute for the Environment,Stanford University, California; former director, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; and past boardmember, Society for Conservation Biologyare strong rhetoric meant to set the tone for the entire letter and serve as expert advice for senators who might not understand the significance of wildlife conservation. The added strength of any argument is to provide support for a claim. Writers and speakers alike need to provide examples, quotations, or citations in order to successfully defend their statements to an audience expecting to be persuaded or informed by the truth. For the rhetorician they would apply inventio (all available means of persuasion) and topics (means for researching arguments). For the scientists, they are especially relying on data to be the warrant for their claims. An example from their letter would be

“According to an article in the September 30, 2005, edition of Science, less than one percent of listed species have gone extinct since 1973, while 10 percent of candidate species still waiting to be listed have suffered that fate. In addition to the hundreds of species that the Act has protected from extinction, listing has contributed to population increases or the stabilization of populations for at least 35 percent of listed species, and perhaps significantly more, as well as the recovery of such signature species as the peregrine falcon” ( ).

This is an appeal to reason (logos), to produce empirical evidence is, ultimately, what science is all about and it is an effectual rhetorical device, especially when paired with an ethical appeal. For example:

“We are writing as biologists with expertise in a variety of scientific disciplines that concern biological diversity and the loss of species… Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water, and myriad other ecosystem products and services on which we depend every day. If we look only at well-studied species groups, nearly one-third of native species in the United States are at risk of disappearing. Extinction is truly irreversible — once gone, individual species and all of the services that they provide us cannot be brought back” ( ).

The above quote begins by re-establishing a voice of authority (ethos) (“we are writing…with expertise”) then proceeds to offer expert knowledge backed with data (ethos and logos) (“Biological diversity provides food…[and] nearly one-third of native species…are at risk of disappearing”) ( ).

The second document, written by Peyton Knight, follows much in the same manner as the biologists’ letter. As a commentator and analyst of public policy, Knight already possesses a certain expertise that rivals that of the scientists though is quite different. His use of ethos is as an expert in interpreting the ideas and information found in documents of public policy, documents such as the Crapo Bill. Knight is traversing the same territory the scientists must traverse that of interpreting statistical and scientific data to bolster arguments (ethos and logos). However, Knight comes to a much different conclusion than do the scientists. For example, when he speaks of the failure of the ESA he provides a wealth of examples and data to support his claims.

“In the more than 32 years the Endangered Species Act has been on the books, just 34 of the nearly 1,300 U.S. species given special protection have made their way off the "endangered" or "threatened" lists. Of this number, nine species are now extinct, 14 appear to have been improperly listed in the first place, and just nine (0.6 percent of all the species listed) have recovered sufficiently to be de-listed. Two species (a plant with white to pale-blue flowers called the Hoover's woolly-star and a yellow perennial, Eggert's sunflower) appear to have made their way off the threatened list, in part through "recovery" and in part because they were not as threatened as originally believed” ( ).

The above quote is chock full of statistics, several within each sentence, bumping into each other and spilling into another sentence. This ample use of data is Knight’s way of emphasizing his expertise as an analyst by inundating the reader with data (logos).

It would be reasonable to assume that a senator, as an Everyman, would seek out the counsel of a science expert to guide their decision-making on science issues. It is no wonder then that the biologists chose to take every opportunity to communicate their expertise as biologists and to emphasize the volume of expert supporters. Yet, the same use of data, by Knight, a non-scientist, provides his opposition argument with the same, or nearly the same, power of persuasion. Data for the scientist is tantamount for the truth. But rhetoric only knows of truth, truth with a capital T through the mind/perspective of the speaker. This is no better an example of this when we have a conflict of truths or, perhaps a better way of looking at it is a conflict of rhetorical impetus.

The motivations for both authors to pen their documents are different despite sharing the same rhetorical situation (concern that the senate would pass a bad bill). For the biologists, they are addressing their concern and counsel to U.S. Senators who are directly responsible for developing and passing a bill that would have strong implications on the future of the ESA. They need to ingratiate themselves to the powers that be and persuade them to make good and wise decisions. (Something Thomas More would have aspired to do knowing full well though that Princes reject counsel that didn’t compliment their needs). For Knight, he is responding to the introduction of the Crapo Bill to the Senate. As a commentator and analyst of public policy he is serving the needs of a particular audience who reads the web articles of his employer, National Policy Analysis. But like the biologists, the rhetorical situation Knight shares is the potential creation of poor public policy (a weakened ESA).

magnitude of 5

what a long week

good things, bad things, indifferent things
production - check
progress - debateable

i really want to get my essay finished (almost there i think) and get this presentation over with so i can focus on other things. (i have this class essay and the final paper due for tech writing and i really don't have that class figured out yet).

i have been having more trouble with this essay than i feel like i should. hopefully, when all is said and done i will look back on it and it will make sense to me. in the meantime i am writing and slowly getting somewhere that makes a good shape. like a perfect rhombus in an impefect octagon world.

i have a rough draft of the end of my essay, part of it is in my head, i am currently trying to determine how to continue with what i already have. it was a struggle, this essay but i had a very productive wednesday and a very unproductive friday. i have spent a great deal of time editing and re-writing pages and ideas that i have had for awhile now. this is often a normal process for me. i like to clean up as i continue on to the next section of idea, the problem here tho is that i am uncertain about where i am going or how to ge there. for example, have i addressed talking points like rhetorical theory, rhetorical theory vs. motivation, aristotelian rhetorical theory thoroughly enough? have i explicated my documents well enough? in general when is enough enough, is there always a need for more?

my best guess is that i will have a complete rough-ish draft by end of the day tuesday

j

oh, to have had a lovely weekend

does progress count?
what do we consider to be progress anyway?
whenever we humans claim to have made progress more problems sprout up like in a leaky boat. progress, really, is just dependent upon one's perspective no matter how open or narrow it might be. i am determined to complete my thought with this essay. i have many thoughts tho. just for the sake of documentation, i'll post some of my more put together work. bon soir.


The Essay so far

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has elicited strong responses from both its supporters and its detractors. The ESA is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). It was born out of earlier attempts by the U.S. government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation, which grew out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world which prompted the creation of this unique and influential law.

Long have arguments been made, throughout the history of the U.S., supporting the preservation of wildlife which have regularly butted up against the interests of other individuals, governments, and industries that revere property rights (as supported by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), industrial progress and business profits. These arguments have been brought to public attention more recently through the Bush Administration’s attempts at weakening the ESA and other environmental laws and Congress’ role in facilitating that.

The House of Representatives passed what has come to be known as the Pombo Bill named after its author Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) on September 29, 2005. Critics of the bill are many and include biologists, wildlife and environmental groups, and members of Congress including members of Pombo’s own Republican Party such as Rep. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Opposition voices to the bill speak of the revisions as being detrimental to the environment and wildlife. Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has said that the revisions “systematically strip all of the recovery tools from the Act” (Jim Motavalli e-Magazine.co m). This House bill “calls for the elimination of habitat protection for endangered species, weakens oversight of federal agency actions and undermines the use of sound science in decision-making about imperiled wildlife. It would also require taxpayers to pay developers not to kill endangered species” (Defenders of Wildlife web article).

But there are supporters of the bill within the House and Senate, and among hunters, farmers and property rights activists. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) spoke about his bill in a written statement saying that “Upholding this right (property rights as described in the Fifth Amendment) and partnering with the landowner is the only way we are going to improve the Endangered Species Act’s failing results for recovery…This legislation does just that” (redorbit.com/news/science/ 256999/pombos_bill_clears_house_hurd le/ & Denis Cuff, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.).

Rhetorical situations are invaluable and inevitable realities. It is through these fleeting confluences of events which create the impetus, the necessity for rhetorical response. Lloyd Bitzer argued that
“human relations operate[d] in the context of rhetorical situations governed by exigencies, that is, social, political, economic, and ethical urgencies that invited discursive responses. Rhetoric occurs[red] when a speaker responded to the perception of exigency by addressing an audience that could be persuaded to make changes that would modify the urgency” ( ).

These moments of inspiration are ever present in the universe and within our own personal sphere of interactions. Just as rhetorical situations exist in the air so to does rhetoric. It is through rhetoric that we humans are able to make sense of, and interact with, each other and our environment. When we consider these contexts when analyzing two opposing arguments it helps us understand the influence of, and the purpose of, the rhetoric being utilized.

It is my objective to shed some light on the role of rhetoric in the contentious arguments in recent debates about the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When the ESA was up for renewal in Congress in 2005 a controversial bill was passed that year, which spread concern throughout the scientific, wildlife preservation and environmental communities that the Senate’s bill would lead to a much weakened version of the ESA. For my purposes, I have chosen two documents that present two different opinions about the success of the ESA at conserving endangered species. It is my contention that it is through rhetorical situations that rhetoric is given the fuel for action/life and that each rhetorical situation dictates a course for a particular rhetorical response.

Each document has its genesis in the form of a direct response to congressional bills, one passed in the House, and the other up for a vote in the Senate. The exigencies are one and the same here with the actions of the Senate being top-most on the minds of the authors. Will the Senate pass a bill that would complement the one passed earlier in the House? Perhaps, the Senate would pass a bill that would be at odds with the House’s bill? Just the same, the Senate could decide not to take any formal action and the issue, for the moment, anyway, could die. With any one of these scenarios being equally plausible why have the authors of these documents chosen to write? Why have they made their particular rhetorical choices? One argument is made in support of the ESA while the other argues that the ESA is a failure. Which, of any, argument is more successful, and why? In order to answer these questions let us evaluate these two documents.

It is inevitable that science and politics will intermingle – each laying some claim as the true important factor in the improvement of the lives of the citizens. Both are rife with rhetorical displays and both depend on rhetoric for their sustenance and survival. The arguments made in the first document entitled A Letter from Biologists to the United States Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act had the weight of the biological science community lauding the Endangered Species Act for its importance in conserving endangered species, its success dependent upon its ‘solid foundation in science.’ Through the course of the history of the ESA a premium has been placed on the word and the work of the science community to best serve the intentions of the ESA. The opposition viewpoint, as characterized by Peyton Knight, the director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. ( ), is that the ESA is a failure. His article, entitled The “Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act”: An Analysis of the Senate Proposal to Reform the Endangered Species Act, argues that the senate’s revision of the ESA is not good, yet he does not approve of the ESA as presently constituted either.

For the biologists, they reacted to the exigency provided by the House when they passed the Pombo Bill. In this context, the scientists felt that a threat to the ESA, and implicitly, then, to wildlife had come to the fore. The degradation of the science, as rendered in the Pombo Bill, involved with the research, proliferation of information, administrative tasks, and execution of duties might even prove detrimental to the employment potential of scientists, though this is in no way implied through the writings of these scientists. It makes the role of rhetoric that of facilitator when it is applied to achieving the ends implied by the rhetorical situation.

From the beginning, the authors and signatories of the biologists’ letter had made it obvious that they were going to get their message out through the use of ethos. The best rhetorical weapon they could have when addressing a scientific issue to politicians would be to portray themselves as experts, and through creating this ethos, a voice of authority, it becomes a undeniably powerful form of persuasion. They include at the outset five different quotes from scientists commenting on why the ESA is important, why it should be protected. Comments such as:


Scientists know we must protect
species because they are working
parts of our life-support system.
Paul Ehrlich, Entomologist, Population Biologist
Bing Professor of Population Studies and president,
Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University,
California; member, National Academy of Sciences;
MacArthur Fellow; and Crafoord Prize winner in
Bioscience

To weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered
Species Act is to doom more species to extinction.
Walter V. Reid, Ecologist
Consulting professor, Institute for the Environment,
Stanford University, California; former director,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; and past board
member, Society for Conservation Biology

are strong rhetoric meant to set the tone for the entire letter and serve as expert advice for senators who might not understand the significance of wildlife conservation.

This rhetorical device is continued farther down the letter into what I might consider a banner, which states that this is “A Letter from 5,738 Biologists to the United States Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act.” Again, the writer(s) of this letter are not being subtle in their attempts to draw attention to the sheer volume of scientific experts who are supporting the ESA.

By choosing a strong character to voice the concerns of

....and something like that

You're a Blockhead, Charlie Brown! pt. 2

Holy balls, man, really!

this is like the hardest thing i have ever, and i mean ever EVER had to write in my whole entire life. Ahem. now having said that. i think i may have had a stroke of, (well, not genius so much as competence) yes, competence with a capital Comp.

so, i have been trying everything to get this damned essay written or at least started on the right track from typing aimlessly, staring blankly to standing on my head and nothing. Zip, Zilch, nothing. my topic seems to go nowhere -- circular -- or uneventful. i cannot for the life of me discover a thesis (inventio is a no go).

all the gazillion resources i've come across are only mildly helpful or are entirely irrelevant to my essay. but i have found some related help in some of the articles we've read and whatever web article that i can find of use. anyway, anyway, anyway....the point is i may have solved the problem tonite. i am planning on going ahead with this full steam regardless of the consequences no matter how dreadful or embarrassing it will be for me or my family or my family's family's grandchildren's family. so here it is...

instead of making the endangered species act my primary topic of discussion (cos my goodness knows that ain't getting me anywhere) i will instead make the rhetorical tools/rhetorical theories i was planning on analyzing the two documents (with two opposing arguments on the goodness/effectiveness of the ESA) as my primary focus. like a lot of the articles we've read which were excuses for smarty pants' to theorize and philosophize using documents to help them along i shall do the same. picture this, my primary concern will be to discuss rhetorical situation and rhetoric especially aristotelian rhetorical theory which i long ago decided would be an interesting an appropriate theory to apply to these texts. the two documents referencing the ESA will serve as my vehicle for discussing these theories both as i have learned of them and as i will add my own take to. so instead of wasting energy on trying to make the ESA work i will make the ESA work for me.

if anyone has a problem with this leave a message with my secretary and i'll get back with you at my earliest convenience. until then, i am gonna write this bitch.

You're a Blockhead, Charlie Brown!

Oh, my poor brain

I have been laboring over this essay in my head and my computer for so long. centuries it seems and whenever i feel like i 'Got It' i don't.

my last post was a sigh of relief, a triumphant declaration of success; breaking through the wall -- 'i'm on my way , baby!' and, perhaps i am. yet my brain will not work. i stare and i stare at my computer i read and i read trying to absorb, trying to take helpful notes and still i cannot make form out of air. right now, i am wondering about my thesis. i don't seem to have one and i am not sure where to find one. perhaps craigslist could be of help.

I have two documents. Both are utilizing the same or similar rhetorical elements of ethos and logos. Both writers are utilizing data and opinion/analysis to support their claims. One article is written by scientists addressed to US Senators and is supporting the ESA and offering opinions about why it should remain as is and how it can be improved/strengthened. The other article is written by a non-scientist and is addressed to an undetermined audience that is arguing that the ESA is a failure. I will apply Aristotelian rhetorical theory to analyze and understand the arguments and discern the effectiveness of each argument.

this is what i have. this is giving me fits. i need a thesis it seems.

should my thesis be arguing for the more successful argument? could i write minus a thesis and just deliver the analysis on a platter for the reader to absorb and make their own determination?
i really don't know

Endangered Species Me pt. 2

Alrighty,

My goal for the week is to have a completed rough draft of my essay by Friday-ish. The hardest part about this essay, for me, has been organizing my thoughts and information and then figuring out how to organize my paper. Up until this past Saturday evening whilst watching my beloved Hockey Night in Canada broadcast (you tell 'em Barry! stupid lightning are stupid...) I was hopelessly confused, doubtful about what i was writing about and how i was going to write it. thankfully my gf helped me out. i am feeling much better about writing this thing now. so indulge me as i write out my thoughts here.

my plan for this essay, as of now, is to analyze the the rhetorical elements of two documents. The first document is a letter written and signed by a whole bunch of individual biologists and other scientists and 900 relevant organizations arguing for the support of the Endangered Species Act, that congress should not weaken it, and that they should provide more financial and legislative support for the ESA. Since this letter is written by scientists i thought it would be interesting to analyze it through the lens of Aristotle. I have identified usage of ethos, logos, and pathos, but mostly ethos. It is possible that I might find some other something to analyze this letter with if i need to.

Next, i will analyze a document that argues against the ESA, and just like before i will find a theory or theorist to be my primary tool for study. I have found a letter that has been written by a guy named Peyton Knight who works for a conservative think tank that i think will work. it was written in response to some legislation that he disagreed with (of which i also have available) and as he argues against the legislation he is also arguing against the ESA. (Alternatively, i could just contrast the legislative article with the response letter but only if it is advised).

Finally, i will conclude the essay by comparing and contrasting the two documents. i will discuss how each document was successful or not, and why as well as explore why each document chose to use the rhetorical elements that it did.

 

Theories of Technical Dysfunction

It makes sense that within an organization there is social activity, and so being, that there is a rhetorical context within an organization. If we are in agreement that knowledge is part of a social contract – that “social communities frame contexts for knowing,” then it should be of the utmost importance for organizations, groups, businesses and schools to acknowledge that and educate those workers, members and students how to engage in these environments successfully.

Teresa Harrison, in her article “Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts,” even proposes the idea that organizations are systems of knowledge. “An organization is constituted in part because its members share in a potentially unique worldview…the content and structure of a knowledge or cognitive system is generated by individuals interacting with each other and with their environments.” The focus of recent articles I’ve read are exploring the relationship between technical communication and rhetoric within organizations, how knowledge in generated or shared, and how educators should approach teaching their students. What I’ve come away with after reading these articles, among them Harrison’s above mentioned piece and “Writing Technologies at White Sands” by Powell Henderson is a strong sense that there are problems with the relationships between people and people with technology.

Whereas I am not wholly surprised by the apparent confusion and conflicts found in the workplace -- within groups and organizations, what do surprise me, though, is the consistent documentation of it over several decades. As far back as the sixties you have people such as Lloyd Bitzer making inroads as to the nature of rhetoric and few, if any, of the aforementioned articles I’ve read recently were written within this century. This makes me curious as to why there is so much past theory, observation and documentation on technical communication within the classroom and workplace environments, the various problems that exist in the workplace and how it relates to technical communication but yet there are no solutions referenced. With so much apparent dysfunction within organizations, et al, with so much apparent need for better, particular education for technical communicators we are reading study after study, article after article documenting and expressing these sentiments. Has no progress been made over the years? Should we expect that there will be any progress any time soon?

What’s the point of reading and analyzing such theoretical articles about things that I agree are interesting and important, yet there is a lack of evidence that any positive changes have happened in industry and education? The same set of questions arises in these studies as do the same observations of conflicts and problems. How are we supposed to respond to all of this?

Emerging Organizational Conflict

...And because of collaborative writing peace was brought to the land. Bunny rabbits and all of the other woodland creatures came together, drank apple juice and rejoiced.

in a way, this is how the Donehy-Farina article "Writing in an Emerging Organization" comes across as he tells the story of Microware. All because of collaborative writing the company was able to begin the process for business success. you know, for all the attention to the process of an emerging organization. i don't recall any reporting on what eventually happened to Microwave. did it survive? was it successful overall? if so, what role did the writing & rhetorical processes play in the future of the company.

i still kinda wish that an article like this were available that is more contemporary than the earl 1980s. for me, personally, it would help put the role of writing in  modern careers & industries in perspective, it would help me understand how important writing is nowadays.

his ideas for how collaborative writing refines the focus of 'reality' & rhetoric seems to make sense. he definitely wants to emphasize the social aspect of writing & the writing process which i can agree with. what i found interesting was his thoughts about oral discussions & interactions with co-workers as a vital part of the social aspect of the writing process. i know that employers are not going to like the argument that social time, 'goofing off' is actually work when it comes to writing. 

Writing On The Job

The Faigley, Miller article was an interesting one to read, mostly because I am always curious to know how reading and writing influence the economy and the workplaces of the country. Since it was written in 1982 I am not quite as certain how to respond to the conclusions set out in the article -- I am certain things have changed somewhat. Certainly the idea that persons do not dictate anymore and do have their own computers with word processing to write their own letters exists now. It was nice though to see how technology has advanced within my lifetime (born: 1980) and to see that even then their was but a modest emphasis within the culture on writing and communication skills -- reflected perhaps in the colleges and universities that led to the "literacy crisis" of the mid-seventies.

My own experiences with communication skills bumping against the disinterested technology students has lead me to believe in the fundamental necessity of reading and writing and critical analysis skills. I am not certain how to respond to the article because of its age -- I want to be able to read something late enough that I can apply it to the realities of the present. if for only my own sake, as I ponder why I even decided to study Professional Writing in the first place. But what I can readily take from this article is that there still is a difference between on the job writing and off the job writing.

The ways in which we write, as are the motivations and the means in which we do it. Many people write just the same as anyone in the past might have, with journals and lists and as entertainment. But there are more ways to write with new computer technologies (E-Mail, IM) and it seems like we are in an even greater "literacy crisis" now than any time before within the time of the industrial revolution. I am inclined to believe that communication, as viewed as a tool, rightly evolves and changes as technology does. So in that sense, as long as we effectively communicate then all is good, yet I can't get past the idea of proper "effectiveness" and "proper writing." As in there is a "correct" way of writing, spelling, audience, etc. that needs to be taught and emphasized more in school and in the work force.

I think that maybe the best way to ensure the future of writing is to better educate ourselves and our students of the power, influence and necessity of writing. As well, as acknowledging writing in different contexts -- on the job vs. off the job writing so as to better work in both arenas of life. I know for myself, as good, or effective a writer as I believe I am or capable of being, I am ignorant of how to write "practically" and that might be of concern to me or a potential employer. But I'd like to think that I know enough and am capable enough to learn. A background that allows for that to happen is what we should hope for, at least for younger students, especially high school graduates.

rosalind franklin looks like jimmy durante's sister

For starters, since I am currently reading articles about gender – basically feminist studies in technical communication – it is interesting to learn about a female scientist involved in the “discovery” of DNA. Rosalind Franklin was a biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer who contributed to the understanding of the molecular structure of DNA among other things. Her work making X-ray diffraction images of DNA (whatever that means) was the data used by Watson & Crick to develop their hypothesis “regarding the structure of DNA.” For whatever reasons she is lost or obscured in history while her male contributors are remembered and celebrated for their efforts. I don’t know anything well enough to form an opinion about this but I thought bringing it up would be interesting.

I’ll incredibly brief and generalized here. The feminist theorist would, according to Mary M. Lay, like to make known the gender biases inherent in science and technology. These biases, whether intentional or unconscious, give the power to the masculine entity which is thought to have the characteristics suited for science, namely: objectivity and reason. Maybe, had Rosalind Franklin been able to present herself in a more masculine way; write in the masculine language she might have been recognized more for her efforts.

More to the point of the article though, the discussion of kairos is an interesting way to view history for the purposes of rhetoric and technical writing. To be able to criticize Avery for his caution, and aversion to break from the standard of scientific thought comes only in hindsight after someone else has brought about new discovery. In this case, Watson & Crick nine years later. It is a fair argument to look at Avery and his decisions within the context of his time and the time in history. The chronos for him is his time in history and he does exhibit a kairos because he did publish the paper that mentioned DNA as the genetic transfer vehicle in bacteria. Just the same as you can make judgments about Watson & Crick being, perhaps, not cautious enough to appear scientifically prudent. Where Avery was hesitant to jump to conclusions Watson & Crick were more than willing to. Like Avery, Watson & Crick are representative of their time in history and their time in the history of their scientific community. Had they written their paper the same year as Avery what would the response have been? Again, context plays a large role in determining histories discoveries.

Proposal

Dude, I hope this came out alright. I was dealing with uncertainty at every turn. Bon Soir!

English 505
Justin Blumberg
Proposal

I have chosen to pursue a rhetorical analysis of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its purposes, and its benefits and its criticisms. The ESA was passed into law in 1973 with the intent that it would preserve those species of life that were in the most need for species survival. The benefits and successes of the ESA have competed with the controversies and oppositions that have developed because of it. It is a very complicated issue to unpack, one that has influential roots back to the earliest days of the US nation, including cultural implications founded by Native Americans, early European settlers, immigrants, myth and folklore, environmental concerns, religion, commerce and economies, the rights of citizens and landowners, corporate concerns, and of course, the ‘rights of nature.’ The ESA was born out of a collective national insight into the need for the government and the citizenry to take an active role in the stewardship of the animal and plant species of the country.

I believe that the best course of action for this paper would be for me to explore the document that makes up the Endangered Species Act, and use whatever insights I may glean to establish a backdrop for further discussion. The breadth of the potential areas of rhetorical exploration makes me hesitant to take on a line of discussion that would prove to be too winding and thorny. It might be more useful for our purposes for me to focus my attention on the nature of the ESA and its causes and effects on the wildlife it serves and the causes and effects of the country it imposes itself on. There is great support for the ESA where people of all kinds, from government officials, environmentalists, scientists, and landowners believe there is a need for human intervention in the preservation of our natural resources – and would even claim that there is need for the ESA, and, as such, the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS/NMFS), to be granted greater powers. On the other hand, opponents of the ESA would argue that the ESA has too much power as it is, and is not serving the benefit of the human population in this country.

Opposing argumentation like this could be enough to frame my paper but I feel like it would be best if I included analysis and discussion of the ESA as a whole. I would like to specifically touch on: What is the Endangered Species Act? How does the ESA work? Include discussions on the listing and delisting process; discuss the support and opposition arguments toward the ESA; and possibly include as an example a particular animal or case as support.

What Is The ESA?

The Endangered Species Act was born out of earlier attempts by the US government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. It is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation. It was out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world which prompted the creation of this unique and influential law. Let us now look at some of the text that comprises the ESA.

The following is an excerpt from the Endangered Species Act Section 2:

(a) FINDINGS. – The Congress finds and declares that –
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction,…

The language in this text can be interpreted as an appeal to reason. There does not appear to be any overly demonstrative, or emotionally provocative language. It seems to me that it is written very clearly, succinctly and directed toward a large audience – speaking for a specific group of persons residing in a speech community that can understand the reasons for the Act. Despite the structure of the document being of a specific discourse community it still serves its purpose of explaining Congress’ rationale for the ESA.

I will follow next with an explanation of how the ESA works and an analysis of another section the ESA document.

How Does The ESA Work?

The ESA is enforced by two separate federal agencies who share administrative responsibilities. “The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior is responsible for protecting terrestrial and avian species and freshwater fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce takes responsibility for maritime species, including anadromous fish such as salmon” (Salzman 280). Either the FWS/NMFS can, of their own initiative, place a species on the endangered species list, or it may receive petitions from outside organizations or individuals.

These decisions are based on scientific data that are taken into consideration by the Department of the Interior. Whether a species is in danger of extinction and therefore should be listed, or if it is determined that populations of listed species has risen to healthy, recovered levels then that species can be removed from the list. Below is a section of the ESA document that details further how decisions to list a species are made.

SEC. 4
(a) GENERAL – (1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence…

Again, with the document here we have an instance of rational appeal. The need for articulation is apparent in that this document is spelling out for the reader or interpreter the process for determining what is an endangered or threatened species. There isn’t an argument here to be won or lost, but a presentation of a structure, an ideal, or a belief which needs to be received and understood by all relevant entities which would read this, or be prosecuted because of this.

Now that the ESA is presented and explained enough for our purposes I think it would be best to conclude the paper with a discussion of the benefits, or successes of the Act in contrast with its oppositions. I believe that the controversies that have dogged the ESA from its beginning provide an opportunity to analyse the rhetoric used by those on either side of support for the ESA.

Arguments In Support Of And Against The ESA

Much of the proponents for the ESA are made up of a wide-ranging cross-section of the US population, which include government officials, private citizens, landowners, environmentalists and scientists. There are numerous reasons for why persons choose to support the ESA and want to help it thrive. Some reasons include: belief that it is humankind’s natural position to be steward of the natural world; an intellectual understanding of how all of life fits together in a larger ecosystem – how all of life is, ultimately, interdependent; an emotional connection to the natural world and wildlife – the thought of impermanence is scary; the empathy for a fellow living creature suffering is strong and influential. These are persons who see the value in maintaining a healthy natural environment where all of nature’s creatures can co-exist to the other’s benefit.

Considered of great value with this is biodiversity “which constitutes the overall community of organisms within a habitat and the physical conditions under which they live” (Salzman 279). By having biodiversity we humans can benefit from “detoxification and decomposition of wastes, purification of air and water, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, control of harmful agricultural pests, support of cultural activities, and provision of aesthetic beauty and pleasure” (Salzman 280). Obviously, what benefits us makes us more inclined to promote that of which we benefit from. Put more simply, humans will be more supportive of preserving natural habitats if doing so proves a significant value to our lives.

A lot of the opposition seems to stem from persons who see the power of the FWS/NMFS as Big Government interfering with the lives and livelihoods of the citizenry. The ESA has the ability to restrict what landowners can do to or with their land if it is deemed that an endangered species’ habitat might be destroyed thus harming the endangered species. This could effect how a landowner, especially a farmer conducts business. For example, will they be able to till their land or fell trees on their property if doing so destroys habitat? This same power effects the government and corporate businesses too, preventing them from constructing things like dams, shopping centers or other business enterprises if it interferes with the ability of an endangered species to thrive. Moreover, there is concern from hunters and fisherman when they are unable to legally hunt for either personal or commercial purposes.

Through examples of documents and case studies that represent these different opinions about the Endangered Species Act it can make understanding why these arguments work, or if at all. Part of my consideration for this is to focus on Congressional hearings, cases brought to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, and choosing a particular species, for example the Brown Pelican who has had some attention from the FWS/NMFS in the past.

I will try to make the ESA connect to examples of FWS/NMFS in action, and hopefully in doing so I will be able to make connections to my audience. It is important that I am able to discover the rhetorical devices that have helped construct the attitudes behind the ESA and that promote its means and ends to a citizenry with sundry motivations and opinions about conservation or environmental degradation. Though those terms alone could be put under the microscope of rhetorical analysis. Those who oppose the ESA may not like to think that they are somehow ‘evil’ or anti-conservationists, but perhaps are promoting the welfare of the country in a different way. This course of discussion though may be best explored in a different paper. For now, I would like to confine my research to the topics outlined above.



Bibliography
Magoc, Chris J. Environmental Issues In American History: A Reference Guide With Primary Documents. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2006.

Salzman, James, and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2007.

ESA Proposal Notes

Here are my founding notes of which i will compose my proposal with. I am still uncertain exactly what my main focus is, at least how that would become in context of this class. I have a series of questions at the top of the page that have guided my research and are how i am currently planning on designing my final paper.

Endangered Species Act

What is it?
How does it work?
How and Why are species placed on the list?
How and Why are they removed from the list?
Arguments in support of the ESA
Arguments opposed to the ESA
An animal example: Brown Pelican?

What is the ESA?

A federal law which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss.” Does not “effectively address the problem of exotic species…[it] provides no protection to a species until that species is in serious danger of extinction.” “Rather than protecting species or ecosystems when they are healthy, the ESA waits until a species is on the brink of extinction.” Was passed into law in 1973 and signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon.

Purposes [of the ESA] – “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.”

How does it Work?

“The Secretary shall by regulation…determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence…”

“Two federal agencies split administrative responsibilities under the ESA. The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior is responsible for protecting terrestrial and avian species and freshwater fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce takes responsibility for maritime species, including anadromous fish such as salmon.”

Listing Process

“The ESA protects only those species that the FWS lists as either endangered or threatened. A species is endangered if the FWS finds that it is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A species is threatened if it is :likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.” “

“Under section 4 of the ESA, the FWS can decide to list a species on its own initiative, or an individual or organization can petition to list the species. In deciding whether to list a species, the FWS sometimes must decide what a species is. If a flower is very similar to a known species but the flower appears to have slightly smaller petals, for example, is the flower a separate species? If two separate plant species combine to reproduce, is the resulting plant a new and distinct species or merely a hybrid? Unfortunately, the ESA does not define the term “species” or address these issues.”

“The ESA tries to keep economic and political considerations out of listing decisions. Under the ESA, FWS must determine within 90 days of receiving a listing petition whether the petition presents sufficient evidence to pursue a full review of the species’ status and must decide within a year of that determination whether to list a species.”

Delisting Process

The purpose of the ESA is, ultimately, not to just list endangered species but to restore endangered populations so they can be taken off the list. “As of mid-2006, only 42 species had been “delisted.” Nine of these species, moreover, were delisted because they are now extinct. Another 18 were delisted because of taxonomic revisions, new information, or changes in the ESA. The FWS and NMFS had delisted only 15 species because the species had sufficiently recovered to be removed from protection.”

Arguments supporting the ESA

“Under some biocentric views of nature, species have an intrinsic right to exist and thrive, and humans have an obligation to respect that right. Many religions, moreover, believe that humans have an ethical obligation to be careful stewards of nature.” There have been motivations in preserving species for potential genetic value – the hope that through research of these present species drugs and treatments may be derived to cure human ailments.

Of greater value, “biodiversity (which constitutes the overall community of organisms within a habitat and the physical conditions under which they live) provides a wide range of “ecosystem services” of immense importance to humans. These services include detoxification and decomposition of wastes, purification of air and water, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, control of harmful agricultural pests, support of cultural activities, and provision of aesthetic beauty and pleasure.

Arguments opposing the ESA

“Policy makers attack the ESA for restricting new land development, angering property owners and local governments. In the western USA, the ESA has reduced the amount of water that farmers and cities can divert from rivers and other waterways. The ESA also constrains the federal government’s freedom to build dams and freeways, to develop timber, petroleum, and other natural resources, and to take a variety of other actions of importance to various political constituencies.”

“should the ESA balance the benefits of preserving a species against the economic costs of preservation. Where habitat is located on private land, property owners cannot use their land in a way that would appreciably reduce the likelihood that the species will survive and recover, no matter how valuable the land use.”

Endangered Me List

As much as I had wanted to pursue writing a paper about the relationship between rhetoric and sign language, or the deaf community I have decided to write about the Endangered Species Act. When I made attempts at discovering resource material for what I may want to write about regarding sign language and rhetoric I wasn't able to find anything that really seemed useful or interesting.  For awhile, I thought that my idea was so unique, so brilliant that I was the first person to have thought to investigate how rhetoric applies toward the deaf community, or if it even does. There is a lack of acknowledgement from previous generations regarding minority forms of communication -- Aristotle certainly hadn't considered rhetoric anything but an oral or written exercise.  There still is a divide between speaking culture and the silent culture of the deaf.  I thought for sure that this would be a successful endeavor -- fertile ground for exploration, yet I could find nothing that directly dealt with sign language and the study of rhetoric.  I don't feel qualified to begin writing a massive aper in less than a semester piecing together a quilt or mosaic of information to tell a story or impart some information, certainly without having any personal experience to rely on.

I was able to find more information about endangered species and the Endangered Species Act. I believe that I can find more suitable information easier and therefore helped make my decision.  I don't yet have a thesis, but I am hoping to have one soon.  That will help me sort through the resource material wiser and with a more critical eye.