Since last class’ discussion, I couldn’t get the thought of rhetoric out of my head throughout these readings. In all but the first of our readings, I’d say that all of them employ some sort of rhetorical trickery—whether it be the sort of ad hominem stuff going on in the article of Bush’s policies post-Katrina (which I still agree with, all-in-all, but attacking Bush for being Bush was played out and useless as a strategy of talking about the damage done long before he was out of office), or the incendiary methods of extreme pathos throughout Land of Opportunity. Especially in LoO, there is no attempt made to veil their rhetorical strategy: the man talking about gentrification in Brooklyn uses some classic power-dynamic strategies to place himself in a position of authority; the urban planners in Katrina specifically say they’re to stop using terms like “footprint” or what-have-you in favor of “solidifying communities;” and Acorn was just as drowned in rhetoric. I come away from all of this really only being able to say for sure that climate change is happening, from scientific evidence that shows it, but once politicians and group-interest gets involved, the nuances of data are lost. So, is there a way to “depoliticize” issues like climate change, to strip away rhetorical terminology and present facts and studies that will still have people taking action with passion?