Ah, Yes, Speakers Still Need Research, the Still-Continuing Case of Donald Trump,

Trump speaks to African leaders, WH image

Research is good. Of course I would say that, since I'm a retired college professor. Still, look at President Donald Trump's recent Africa speech. He talked about economic progress in the nation of "Nambia." No such country. Maybe Mr. Trump mixed up Namibia with Zambia. The White House official transcript corrected this to read "Namibia." Too late.

Salesman Dale Carnegie's best-selling 1936 book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, talked about how important it is to get people's names right. Mr. Trump was for many years a professional, high-level salesman. How much would we ridicule an African leader who visited our region and called us the "United Provinces of America" or the "Untied States of America" or some other careless error? If the President doesn't know basic geography, surely there are people in the State Department who could brief him. As it was, he surely either insulted the African leaders by getting "Namibia" wrong, or he lost respect in their eyes. Probably both.

Was this just a meaningless gaffe? Maybe. We all make mistakes. I make plenty. When you are in the public eye, people notice little gaffes.

Research is good.

P.S.: The White House "corrected" the transcript to what Mr. Trump should have said. The lesson here, if you want to know what he actually said, is to go back to the primary source which, in this case, is the video of the speech itself. Another principle of research is - go to the original source!

P.P.S.: Was this Mr. Trump's mistake, or an error by his speechwriters? Who knows? It doesn't matter, because the speaker, and the speaker alone, is responsible for what comes out of the speaker's mouth.

Trump's Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Part 2: Who is the Real Donald Trump?

Donald Trump at UN General Assembly

Follow-up on President Donald Trump's speech to the United Nations yesterday, which history will remember as the "Rocket Man" speech. Who is the real Donald Trump? The calm, responsible Donald Trump who can read just fine from a Teleprompter? Or the wild, irrational Donald Trump who spews out insults and conspiracy theories? During the "Rocket Man" speech, stylistic inconsistencies show that both Donald Trumps showed up.

Most of the speech was, although far from calm, consistent with conservative doctrine. Any recent president, even a liberal president, could have said this:

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.

Ronald Reagan's speechwriters could produce much better prose, but otherwise Reagan could have said this:

To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past.  Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.

Other than the phrase "Rocket Man," the "Rocket Man" passage was consistent with long-standing American nuclear doctrine of massive retaliation:

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.  Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.  

So, for the most part, the "Rocket Man" speech represented the dignified, presidential Donald Trump. But two passages represented the Donald Trump who spews out insults and random bizarre comments.

1. Trump referred to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as "Rocket Man" because of North Korea's recent missile tests. Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower would never have said that.

2. In a characteristic move, Trump talked about "loser" terrorists.

Most presidential speeches are written by committee. News reports suggest that White House aide Stephen Miller may have drafted this speech, but stylistic inconsistencies suggest that several people, including Mr. Trump himself, penned some of the language.

Dramatic language always gives emphasis. No matter how many careful, sober comments Mr. Trump made, this will always be the "Rocket Man" speech, and the accompanying threat to destroy North Korea dominates the listener's mind.

Trump's Speech to the United Nations General Assembly: Does It Help to Insult and Threaten People?

Trump at UN General Assembly, White House image

President Donald Trump spoke to the United Nations General Assembly today. News reports focused on his threat to destroy North Korea. Writing about this speech, never-Trumper Jennifer Rubin talked about Trump's "incoherence" and his "unintelligible" policy. Conservative writer Ed Rogers thought that Trump's presentation was reassuring. Rogers was, however, careful not to quote Trump's threat to destroy North Korea, which might have contradicted his thesis. Mr. Trump's speech falsely claimed that United States job growth had reached remarkable highs. Well, of course, careful research has never been Mr. Trump's strong point. He praised his own "America First" policy, and recommended nationalist policies to all of the other nations. To my surprise, this got some applause.

In this post, however, I just want to focus on Mr. Trump's language, which flipped between elegance and, well, nastiness. Most of the speech was carefully crafted in good, standard English, and made useful points. For example, he praised the United Nations in reasonably stirring language: "This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity." So far, so good.

Some of Mr. Trump's language, however, seemed very un-presidential. Consider his threat to destroy North Korea:

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.  Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.  The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary.  That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for.  Let’s see how they do.

North Korea, CIA image

A threat to destroy another country cannot be taken lightly. Nevertheless, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, rightly abbreviated as MAD, has been the cornerstone of America's nuclear policy since the 1950s. Calling a world leader who is armed with H-bombs and guided missiles "Rocket Man" seems not only excessive, but very colloquial. Usually, a United Nations speech aims at some sort of dignity. Calling a world leader names is unorthodox. Notice that the press exaggerated Mr. Trump's threat: he did not promise to destroy North Korea if they failed to discontinue their weapons program, but only if it became necessary to defend the United States or its allies, and he called for peaceful UN action. When a speaker makes threats, an audience may perceive the worst.

As he has before, Mr. Trump once again referred to terrorist as "losers:"

The United States and our allies are working together throughout the Middle East to crush the loser terrorists and stop the reemergence of safe havens they use to launch attacks on all of our people. 

Was Mr. Trump's unorthodox use of colloquial, insulting language a benefit or a harm to his speech? To some extent, time will tell. There is a long-standing history of speakers who deliberately violate cultural and historical traditions to draw attention to their cause. Maybe many of Trump's supporters, who want to "drain the swamp," would welcome Trump's frank language. That's one point. Another point is that it does not always help to make your enemies angry. Angering people who have hydrogen bombs can be especially unwise.

Finally, the bellicose language only occurred in a few parts of the speech. Nevertheless, that's almost all that people talked about. Much of the speech reaffirmed the United Nation' traditional values, but this was overlooked because so many pundits only wanted to talk about the threats and the insults. Consider, for example, this quite thoughtful passage:

For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope.  We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife.  We are guided by outcomes, not ideology.  We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.

That is not a bad thought, is it? But no one paid attention to it, because other parts of the speech were more dramatic.

In some ways, the speech reminded me of Yasser Arafat's UN speech, which my student Mary Anne George wrote about for her master's degree research in the 1980's. Arafat also combined the promise of peace with threats of war: "Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hand." Of course, that has not worked out very well for the Middle East, where olive branches continue to be in short supply many years later.

So, Trump's bellicose language: did it detract from the speech's real message, or was it the speech's real message? Did Trump hope to promote peace by reminding the audience of the consequences of war? Was this a speech of unity or division? Or both?

Donald Trump's Speech at the United Nations, September 18, 2017: (Almost) a Model of Careful Diplomacy

Donald Trump at UN Reforming UN Meeting

President Donald Trump spoke at the United Nations on September 18 at the Reforming the United Nations: Management, Security, and Development Meeting. In this speech, Mr. Trump outlined a program for improving the United Nations' operations. For the most part, this speech laid out standard points that American conservatives have advocated for some time. For the most part, he explained those points out in a sober, responsible fashion.

To put this in context, right-wing discourse has often considered the United Nations to be part of some kind of global conspiracy theory. This is very unlikely, since the United Nations has trouble agreeing on anything, much less a complex, multi-year conspiracy. Still, given Trump's strong conservative support base, there was no chance that he would give unequivocal endorsement to the United Nations.

I said that the speech was sober and responsible "for the most part." Mr. Trump began his speech by bragging about the economic value of nearby Trump Tower: "I actually saw great potential right across the street, to be honest with you, and it was only for the reason that the United Nations was here that that turned out to be such a successful project." His critics complained, and rightly so, that this was an inappropriate commercialization of public affairs.

Once he finished his unseemly real estate sales pitch, however, Mr. Trump complimented the Secretary-General for his reform vision. Mr. Trump reaffirmed United Nations' goals, which he said "include affirming the dignity and worth of the human person and striving for international peace." Mr. Trump complained about the United Nations' unwieldy bureaucracy and poor management. He encouraged United Nations to focus on results-oriented management. That sounds perfectly in line with Mr. Trump's business background. Mr. Trump also complained that some nations take on "a disproportionate share of the burden" of supporting the United Nations. By that, he meant the United States, which provides the United Nations with enormous financial support.

Mr. Trump's speech was vague and general, maybe even generic. He laid out no specific policy or recommendation. It was serious and (for the most part) responsible. He said very little that could offend anyone. Pretty much any American president, certainly any Republican president, could have given the same speech, and it would have been fine. President Trump obviously wanted to establish himself as a responsible member of the world community, and a speech like this would help to do so. Indeed, that may have been his main purpose.

But, then, we heard the bellicose speech that he gave on September 19, just one day later, which was something else entirely. I'll say more about that later today, after the transcript is released.

Beyoncé's Speech at the Hand in Hand Telethon: A Multimedia Event

Popular singer Beyoncé gave an interesting short talk during the Hand-in-Hand Telethon. It's an interesting question whether this was more of a speech or more of a PSA. In the new media age, it probably doesn't matter. Beyoncé talked about the suffering of the hurricane victims, made the obvious connection to climate change, and pointed out that the hurricane harms people and property without respect to race, creed, or ethnicity. Judging from her tone and style, she was probably reading from a prepared text. Her excellent speaking voice and media presence help to make that work.

What I thought was really interesting, however, is that in addition to images of herself speaking, her message included video clips of the disaster. Background music played. It wasn't just a speech; it was a multi-media event. 

On the one hand, this is not new. Political speeches are often supplemented by images and music. PowerPoint presentations often accompany business speeches. On the other hand, only modern technology could make such a speech possible. The multimodal communication added to Beyoncé's effect. If a picture is worth 1000 words, five pictures must be worth 5000 words (to paraphrase a friend). Let's remember that Stevie Wonder accompanied his own Hand-in-Hand Telethon speech on the electornic keyboard. 

P.S.  Many people ask whether it is proper for media personalities who are not climate scientists to complain about climate change conspiracy theories. Why not? It is not as if there's any massive controversy in the scientific community about climate change; most of the controversy has been coming from nonscientists. If nonscientists can complain about climate change research, why can't nonscientists defend it? It only seems fair. 

P.P.S.  Beyoncé's current website homepage shows a hurricane rescue image that links to her telethon speech, so she continues her theme in preference to a more commercial image. 

"On Aug. 30 at 3:20 p.m. EDT NASA's Aqua satellite captured this visible light image of Tropical Storm Harvey moving north over Texas and Louisiana."

Credits: NASA Goddard MODIS Rapid Response Team

Ah, Yes, Speakers Still Need Research, the Continuing Case of Donald Trump

Donald Trump at JB Andrews

Speaking at Joint Base Andrews, near Washington DC, President Donald Trump gave an otherwise fine talk on the 70th anniversary of the United States Air Force – during which he seemed to mix up the Air Force with the Navy at least twice. Yes, lest we forget, research is good, and it will reduce the number of such mistakes. Let us remember that the Air Force, Navy, Army, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps all operate various types of combat aircraft, and they are all quite proud to do so. Inter-service rivalries aren't as intense as they used to be, but, well, . . .

First, Mr. Trump said that the audience was "better looking than Tom Cruise, and we know they can fight better, and we know they can fly better." This led to applause. Well, of course. Anyone who's watched Top Gun knows that Tom Cruise's character was a Navy fighter pilot –  not Air Force. Did Mr. Trump mean to say that Air Force pilots are better than Navy pilots? I don't think so. I think he just got confused. The Twitterverse lit up about Mr. Trump's contribution to the Navy-Air Force rivalry. Not a pretty sight.

Second, giving a list of his favorite aircraft from his base tour, Mr. Trump mentioned the "F-15, the F-16, the F-18, I don't know which one I liked the most." Oops. The F/A-18 is, once again, a Navy jet. This was the 70th anniversary of the Air Force, not the Navy. Since Andrews is now a joint Air Force-Navy base, there may have been an F/A-18 on the tarmac.

Well, it's not a big deal. Mr. Trump was trying to adapt to his audience, and mostly did well. But, although we all make mistakes, we'll make fewer mistakes if we do our homework. I imagine that the Air Force will forgive their CIC. This time.

Tomi Lahren and Evidence: Can Something Be True Even If You Don't Like It?

Sorry to pick on Tomi Lahren again, but her talk on Fox News yesterday perfectly displays a point that I was planning to make anyway: that people often refuse to believe evidence because they dislike the consequences of believing that evidence. I commented a few days ago about Stevie Wonder's musically-accompanied Hand in Hand Hurricane Harvey telethon speech about global warming, when he said, "Anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent; Lord, please save us all." 

NASA, global warming graph

Lahren responded with her usual outrage. She did not, however, present any evidence against global warming. Instead, she warned that to control global warming would have harmful consequences: "See," she protested, "everyone else is supposed to conserve, adapt, or watch their industries go under. The rest of us are supposed to let our energy-producing communities shut down because Beyoncé, Leo DiCaprio, and Stevie Wonder have made climate change their default religion and on-stage talking point." In other words, she argued that global warming was false because restricting the fossil fuel industry would hurt the fossil fuel industry. Rather circular, no? 

Psychologists Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay have published and documented a theory that they call "solution aversion." Their research shows that conservatives were unlikely to accept evidence about global warming because they dislike the policies that might reduce global warming. They also found that liberals were often unwilling to accept evidence about gun control because they were reluctant to accept the policy consequences. As a result, political opinions become hardened, and people are unwilling to change their opinions even if evidence shows that their opinions are wrong. We see this in ordinary life. For example, cigarette smokers might be reluctant to believe that smoking harms them because they enjoy smoking. Bacon lovers might be reluctant to believe that nitrates are dangerous to eat because they love bacon. A college friend of mine years ago refused to admit that her boyfriend was cheating on her because she didn't want to break up with him.

Lahren, always on the lookout for liberal hypocrisy, also piled on some ad hominem attacks: "what makes Leo DiCaprio, Beyoncé, or Stevie Wonder so noble in this climate change crusade? Huh? How did they get to the event last night? Did they walk? Did they take public transit? Did they even fly commercial? Oh yeah, I forgot, conservation efforts only apply to the little people. Screw coal country, Hollywood liberals and loud-mouth entertainers know what’s best for you." That is, she saw no reason that the coal industry should suffer unless the entertainment stars were willing to suffer, too. None of this, of course, had anything to do with the evidence for or against global warming. It did, however, have everything to do with the way people think.

Of course, civility was lacking on both sides, was it not? Stevie Wonder started the controversy by accusing global warming deniers of being "blind or unintelligent." Nobody likes to be insulted. Going one better, Tomi Lahren responded with sarcasm, complaining about "Hollywood liberals and loud-mouth entertainers." Well, once again, nobody likes to be insulted. Insults don't persuade people to change. Neither, sadly, does evidence. 


P.S. Long-overdue apologies are due to my professor, Charles Larson, who told me in 1973 that evidence doesn't persuade people, because I didn't believe him. I really wanted him to be wrong, which was a case of solution aversion on my part! Also, Larson's book makes an important distinction between the pragmatic and unifying styles of persuasion. We all need more unity, don't we? But Wonder and Lahren were not unifying, were they?

Free Speech on College Campuses – It Happened Once Again!

Bowing to political protests, Harvard University withdrew an invitation to invite WikiLeaks leaker Chelsea Manning to be a Visiting Fellow. I have posted previously about how important free speech is on college campuses. Recently, conservative media outlets have rightly complained when colleges withdrew speaking invitations to right-wing speakers. Strangely, they are less likely to complain when liberal speakers are suppressed. The assault on free speech comes in equal measures from the right and left wings, and it is useless to say that one is worse than the other.

Students should be exposed to many different points of view. In a healthy democracy, people need to be aware of the opinions and reasoning of those with whom they disagree. Ultra right-wing speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer often speak on college campuses, but sometimes find themselves unwelcomed. I say, let them speak – and, despite the controversies, they usually can.

Yet Chelsea Manning, who is despised by right-wing advocates, is not being allowed on Harvard's campus because of pressure from conservatives.

On the one hand, I strongly disapprove of Chelsea Manning, who violated her oath and pled guilty to serious crimes. I do not, on the other hand, see any reason that students should not hear her speak at length. If she is wrong, and I think she is, surely college students are smart enough to figure that out for themselves.

Our democracy thrives on the expression of diverse opinions. We live in an era where millions of Americans get all of their information from highly partisan news sources, and are thus grossly misinformed about what other people think. Americans need more, not less, exposure to different points of view.

Previous posts about free speech on campus: 

Free Speech on Campus, Part III (and follow the links at bottom of that post)

Free Speech on Campus: It Happened Again!

Free Speech on Campus: A Better Outcome?

Free Speech on Campus: The Other Side

Free Speech on College Campuses: Time for Some Humor?

Stevie Wonder's Hurricane Harvey Speech: Music and Speech Together

Hurricane Harvey, NASA

Stevie Wonder gave the opening speech at yesterday's hurricane relief telethon. Like all good speakers, he announced his purpose: "We come together today to love on the people who have been devastated by the hurricanes." He pointed out that their need was not divided by political belief or religion. He criticized the global warming deniers: "Anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent; Lord, please save us all."

Wonder spoke softly and gently, but very clearly. He accompanied himself on the keyboard, playing tastefully with his usual gentle, musical touch. Music and speech both use sound, and they belong together. Remember Obama's Charleston speech?

Wonder didn't just speak; he spoke his words rhythmically, almost like a song. Almost like a poem. This created a style, an effect, that made his speech stand out, that made him hard to ignore. Good speakers take chances; good speakers aren't afraid to be original.

Good for Stevie Wonder: unity, compassion, and a political statement. He spoke gently, but he didn't hold back. Was it right for him to call global warming deniers "blind or unintelligent?" Interesting question. Reason obviously has no effect on conspiracy theorists, so maybe ridicule is the next thing to try. He delivered his insult gently. The gentle speaker is often more powerful than the speaker who yells and screams.


Query: Why do so many people deny global warming in the face of overwhelming evidence? There's some interesting research about the psychology of that kind of irrationality – I'll post about that soon. [Aha! Here's the promised follow-up.]

Beyoncé also gave a couple of excellent hurricane relief speeches. I haven't forgotten her. I'll also post about her soon. [Update. Here's the post.]

Pink and the Power of Pearls at the VMA Awards: Epideictic Excellence

Accepting the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award at the VMA Awards, pop singer Pink (Alecia Beth Moore) talked about her six-year old daughter, Willow Sage Hart. Someone had told Willow that she looked like a boy. Taken aback, Pink asked Willow a few questions, and said that she then went home and created a PowerPoint presentation for Willow about various androgynous rock stars, such as David Bowie and Elton John, "that live their truth, are probably made fun of every day of their life, and carry on, wave their flag and inspire the rest of us." Pink mentioned all of the people who criticized her appearance.

Two points about Pink's heartfelt speech:

(1) She asked a series of rhetorical questions. We saw the other day that Bernie Sanders use the same rhetorical technique in his Labor Day speech. Rhetorical questions can have a powerful cumulative effect. Here's how Pink did it:

"And I said to her, 'Do you see me growing my hair?' She said, 'No, mama.' I said, 'Do you see me changing my body?' 'No, mama.' 'Do you see me changing the way I present myself to the world?' 'No, mama.' 'Do you see me selling out arenas all over the world?' 'Yes, Mama.' 'OK! So, baby girl. We don't change. We take the gravel and the shell and we make a pearl."  

One question by itself would have little effect. But a series of questions can draw the listener to an inescapable conclusion. Beginning speakers often make rhetorical questions kind of boring; Pink pulled her audience along by chaining her questions into a series.

(2) Like all good epideictic (ceremonial) speakers, Pink drew an important lesson about values as she accepted the award. She praised her daughter; she praised several musical artists, and she then drew a conclusion for the audience to emulate: "Keep shining for the rest of us to see." It is very simple to take the easy path. True accomplishment requires taking chances and being a little different.

N.B.: Just for the record, Willow, who professed herself to be unimpressed by Mama's speech, is totally adorable, and mean, nasty people need to stop teasing her. 



Earlier  posts about epideictic speeches: Hillary Clinton at Girls, Inc. luncheon, FDR's War Message, Trump awards a Medal of Honor, family Thanksgiving speeches, A. J. Hinch in Houston, New Year's Speeches. Excellent speeches, every one of them, that drew audiences toward basic values.

I have been fortunate enough to publish a couple of research articles about epideictic speech; ambitious readers can click on my publication list above.

Bernie Sanders' Labor Day Speech to the AFL-CIO

Not many major Labor Day speeches today. The most prominent was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ speech to the AFL-CIO in New Hampshire. (As far as I can see, President Trump mostly released a tweet. Well, fine.)

Sanders began, naturally, of course, how else would he start, by bashing Trump as anti-labor. He said that Trump is “trying to divide our nation up based on the color of our skin, based on the country in which we were born, based on our sexual orientation, based on our religion.” In contrast, Sanders said, “Our job as trade unionists, our job as progressives, is to bring the American people together and to fight any and all attempts to divide us up.” Note that Sanders specifically identified himself as a trade unionist. This established unity with his audience. Sanders also spoke in favor of “dreamers” and opposed Trump’s “cruel” impending decision to suspend their rights. 

Senator Bernie Sanders

Sanders turned to income inequality, which he addressed in standard progressive fashion, but with a nicely phrased set of cumulative questions like these:

“Should America have an economy in which 52% of all new income generated today is going to the top 1%?” 

“Do we want an economy that works for all of us and not just the handful on top?”

“How does it happen that most of the new jobs being created are low-wage and part-time?”

“How does it happen that in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, we are the only country not to guarantee health care to people as a right?”

“How does it happen, brothers and sisters, that the United States of America, not so many years ago, a few decades ago, we had the best educated work force in the world?”

For rhetorical people, Sanders combined the methods of parallel language and rhetorical question. If your audience already agrees with you, these can be quite powerful because they have a cumulative effect. 

Sanders’ use of the phrase “brothers and sisters” is significant, for members of a trade union address themselves as brothers and sisters (e.g., “Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners”) and by using that phrase, Sanders reinforced his solidarity with the union movement.   

Near the end, Sanders told the crowd that “health care is a right.”  This, of course, is a major distinction between the conservative and liberal perspectives, since many conservatives deny that health care is a right. Medicare for all is, of course, Sanders’ signature issue. 

A stirring speech (or an irritating one for conservatives, I suppose), but a speech just aimed at true believers. Sanders did little to prove his points or to advance the public dialogue; instead, he kept his progressive agenda on the public mind. Sanders is not the sort of candidate who becomes president, but he is the sort of progressive who, like William Jennings Bryan or Robert LaFollette, brings new ideas to the public. Let’s remember that most of Bryan and LaFollette’s radical ideas eventually were widely accepted. Will Sanders’ ideas be widely accepted one day? Time will tell. For the moment, the conservative Concord Monitor published a column calling the speech “Bernie Sanders’s Labor Day Fantasies.” 

Random comment: I find it ironic that public education has become a distinctly liberal issue; in my youth, public education was a conservative issue. Many conservatives seem not only to have abandoned their support of public education, but to reject public education.  As a retired academic person, I find that appalling. How can an ignorant nation remain strong? Answer: it can’t. 

Another random comment: Labor Day celebrates the ordinary working American. President Trump promised not to forget them. Will he? As far as I can see, he didn't even give a Labor Day speech.

Official US Senate photo

Astro's Manager A. J. Hinch's Perfect Hurricane Harvey Speech

Now, if you want to know how to present a ceremonial (epideictic) speech, listen to the speech that Houston Astros' manager A. J. Hinch gave in the Houston's Minute Maid ballpark. Houston was still recovering from Hurricane Harvey's terrible flooding. Houston experienced more than 50 inches of rain during the storm, and many people lost their lives.

Hinch started by saying, "Hello Houston, it's good to be home." He thanked the fans for coming, "a very special day to start the rebuild process for our great city." He thanked first responders and everyone who helped the hurricane victims. He thanked the Mets "for allowing us to have the day off yesterday for a day of service." He thanked the Mets for helping with the relief efforts. He thanked everyone in Houston "that's doing something good for somebody else." He ended with a nifty tricolon: "So stay strong, be strong, and we appreciate every one of you." To his credit, he did not engage in invective against the Texas Rangers, who refused to reschedule Houston's games during the flood. Good for him. We all knew about the Rangers' selfish behavior, and there was no need to belabor it.

Remember that a good ceremonial speech always makes a larger point, reinforcing basic values. Belgian philosopher Chaïm Perlman explained this in his New Rhetoric. Hinch emphasized service, community, and compassion.

So--Hinch praised people for doing good things. He cited examples of praiseworthy behavior, which implicitly encouraged other people to help out. He recognized that the game was only a game, and that other things were more important. He also recognized that the game was a chance for the city to rebuild its sense of community. Play ball!