Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address

I feel as if President Eisenhower was trying to convince the country that the work he was doing needed to be continued by the new President coming in.

The President used a lot of pathos in his speech to help his ideas.  By using words like "my countrymen" he relates to everyone, and puts them on the same ground.  Making them feel equal to the President, and that he does truly care about what is going on.  Not to mention in his conclusion he says that, " need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice."  by using religion and himself in his conclusion he makes one believe that he some how will still be apart in the government, even though his Presidency is up.


He also uses a lot of logos throughout his speech to show the people that what he saying is actually true, and needs to be heard.  In one point he talked about the future of America and how it is forever growing smaller.  He explained that the weakest of people needed to be as confident as the rest.  Which to most people seems quite logical, everyone has been taught to work for what they want.  So to bring this point up shows his logical standpoint into his speech.


I believe that ethos was a little harder to find in this document.  By talking this much about how America needs to grow, and what needs to be done in the years to come makes me believe that he only cares about himself.  That he wanted what he did out there in the open, and forever recorded.  He also wanted to make it certain that the next President had huge expectations to live up to.  And he used this speech as a perfect example.  


I believe that what Eisenhower said is convincing.  By using common words and relating government business with normal people he makes it easy for people to relate to him.  Then in tale, having people believe what he was saying.  I do not think he should have put such emphasis on what needed to be done, because he will no longer be President.  And someone else needs to lead the way, maybe a little differently even.

In Defense of the Bible

      This document is a great piece that shows not just one side of the story but both at the same time.  You not only see Clarence Darrow's scientific values and need for evidence to back thing up.  But also William Jennings Bryan easy going way, of what is written is written.
     Bryan made a good point when he was asked if he takes the Bible at face value.  His response was that,"some of the Bible is given illustratively."  This is very true.  The bible uses metaphor and similes throughout the whole thing to get God's word across.  Bryan also brought up the fact that we only estimate when things in history happen, no one really knows for sure.  This shows that he not only reads and understands the bible, but understands that some things we will never truly know.
     On the other hand Darrow should great understanding of civilizations.  He talked about civilizations in China, way before Noah's Ark came about.  He asked Bryan, "Do you know of any scientific man on the face of this earth that will believe such a thing?"  Talking about if our human race showed up in the last 4,200 years.
     Both of these men made amazing points.  Bryan had quite a lot more emotion then Darrow.  But Darrow had tons of logic.  Both sides had compelling insights, and for me I still do not know which one I believe is right.  Thats why this is an important piece of history, because it challenges you to really look at the "truth" and to decide for yourself what is wrong or right.

Was there a sexual revolution in the 1920's?

At the time of the 1920's many people believed that there was a revolution going on that was, "literally saturated with sex."  Now looking back on this era one sees that this was not entirely true.  Communities were changing, cars made it possible for young people to go on dates instead of just talk on the phone.  Educational institutions had almost the same amount of women as men.  This mad for some new normals for women.  Contraceptives also made it possible for premarital sexual intercourse.  All of these changes made for women to look more promiscuous.  

1.  Why did movies, and peers affect the young people more then communities and family did?  Was this good or bad?

2.  Why would most people think that a women's new found freedom was the cause for this revolution?