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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment