the inaguration speech of "flat rhetoric but interesting ideology"

I haven't listened to Obama's speech myself so I can't completely agree or disagree with Mr. Gerson. He said that the speech was "rhetorically flat" but I'm still not sure what he meant by that. I agree with his comment that the instances of cliches and not-so-perfect phrasing didn't make "much difference to the two million people on the Mall — [who] were into the moment." I think it's better that he focused more on his ideology than his rhetoric ; what you're actually eating is more important than its presentation (although presentation does help). He gave good content and people seemed satisfied with what they got. Obama has proven his eloquence in previous speeches. This one showed that he cares about substance. Gerson also talked about how Obama didn't trace America's history to show how historical the moment truly was. I think that's jussomething he expected Obama to do and was personally disappointed when he did not. It was a huge moment in US history and showing the country's progress more would have been cool, but i think it's a good thing that historic-ness wasn't the heart of his speech. Although he is different from any other before him he has the same duty to lead the country and uphold the Constitution just like any other president. Talking about his ideology with a just few references to the past tells me that he is focusing on the future wellfare of our country rather than on his achievement. It is intersting to analyze a presidential speech from a literary perspective, but in the grand scheme of things picking out how a speech wasn't perfect is pretty trivial.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Estan Muertos

Well, looking closely at this book together in class has definitely helped me get more out of it. If I was reading it on my own I would overlook many of the subtle details and  allusions that bring in extra layers of humor and philosophy. Also knowing that this is a Postmodern piece of work and being able to identify the Postmodernities that it is so full of has made it even more enjoyable and interesting.  The idea of existing only as one is summoned is rather intriguing.  It seems to indicate that everyone's existence has a purpose.  If you have not already left an effect, in the process of leaving an effect, or are going to leave an effect, there would be no purpose for your existence. No one can have a meaningless existence even if it is a short one. A baby who is born and dies shortly after or even a miscarried baby makes an effect upon at least the mother.  R & G who come into being as they are exist because Shakespeare has a purpose for them to fulfill even though they don't know it yet. Everything must exist to serve some purpose from the most isolated pebble in an unexplored cave in to MLK Jr. Although it makes me wonder wether a cave which no living thing will ever come in contact with would really exist. I suppose the answer would be yes because something else has given it existence such as water or it is a factor in a chain of events.